' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Sadiq Masih has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Province of Punjab through Inspector- General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab Lahore, Deputy Inspector-General of Police Lahore Range, Lahore and Superintendent of Police Headquarters, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the respondents be directed to bring the appellant on List B/I and allow him to join the Lower Class Training School. He has also prayed that he may be given seniority as per his service period with back benefits and also the conditions in the order of Respondent No, 2 be declared nullity with regard to reduction of rank.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who was appointed as Constable in the Police Force on 16th October, 1968, was sent to East Pakistan where he remained as P. O. W. Uptil February, 1974.
The appellant passed his departmental examination of A-List and also cleared the examination for List B/I on 25th March, 1976. In the year 1978, the appellant became officiating Head Constable.
However, the appellant was dismissed from service on 19th August, 1978, on account of theft case under section 379, P.P.C. Read with section 6, M. L. R. The allegation was that he took the accused persons to the jail by private car owned by the father of one of the accused. The appellant filed appeal before the Additional Inspector-General of Police, who vide his order, dated 17th May, 1979, while reinstating the appellant imposed condition of reduction of rank as well as treated the previous period of service as leave without pay. The appellant on 13th October, 1979, made an application to D. I.-G. Lahore with a prayer to allow him to be sent for training course but the same application as well as a later application was never responded, but instead an order for removal from List B/1 was passed by the learned D. I.-G. Vide his order, dated 24th July, 1980, with a condition that the appellant shall not be posted outside the Police Lines without his permission. He filed an appeal before the Respondent No, 1 praying that since the appellant had been P.
0. W. His name from List B/1 should have been revived. This appeal was filed by Respondent No, 1 vide his order, dated 27th March, 1982. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has made grievance that while striking the name of the appellant from List B.-I. The Respondent No, 3 did not give any proper opportunity for being heard in person to the appellant and no charge-sheet was prepared or enquiry conducted before passing such order. It has been further submitted that the Additional Inspector-General of Police in his order, dated 17th May, 1979, had not provided any Government conveyance. It has been urged that the conceded that the appellant was not at fault for the allegation so made against him for taking the accused person from Court to Jail as he was appellant who had a very good record of service, should have been allowed to remain on List B.-I. With the permission to joining the course in this respect.
6. We have perused the order so passed by D. I.-G, dated 24th July, 1980 and announced on 27th July, 1980, and find that the D. I.-G. Has observed that the appellant had been awarded major penalty of reduction in pay vide order, dated 20th May, 1979 by the Additional I.-G. P. On the charges of misuse of his official position etc. He has further indicated that the scrutiny of the service record of the appellant reveals that he was awarded another major penalty of reduction in pay vide S. P. Hqrs. Letter No, 468-51/H. Q, dated 3rd February, 1980, for not reporting at his place of duty and for absence without leave or permission. According to the order of the D. I.-G. The appellant was awarded another punishment of reduction in pay for the year 1979. In view of these punishments awarded to him the appellant cannot take advantage of rule 13.8A of the Police Rules, 1934, which clearly lays down that if a person has been recipient of a major penalty in his career, his name shall be liable to be struck from List. B.-I. In view of this situation the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant looses all its force that the name of the appellant has been struck down from the list B.-I. Without any justification.
7. The result is we do not find any force in this appeal before us and dismiss the same in limine.
8. However, there will be no order as to costs.