' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Sikandar Hayat, Sub-Inspector, Special Branch, Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal, D. I. G. Police, Multan Range, Multan, Inspector- General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, and Messrs Shah Alam, Fazal-ur-Rehman, Shabbir Hussain and Bashir Ahmed, Inspectors of Police, as Respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order, dated 7th April, 1980/15th July, 1980 be set aside and Respondent No, 2 be directed to place the appellant on probation and confirm him w. e. f. 25th November, 1970 i. e. The date from which his juniors were confirmed as such. He has also prayed that he may be declared senior to the contesting Respondents Nos, 4 to 7 and should also be brought on List 'F' w. e. f. 15th December, 1973 and be awarded pro forma promotion as Inspector from the said date.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the- appellant was admitted to List `E' by the Respondent No, 2 vide his order, dated 9th July, 1966 and was thus senior to Messrs Shah Alam, Respondent No,
4. He has also claimed seniority over Respondent No, 6, Shabbir Hussain and Respondent No, 7, Bashir Ahmad. Respondent No, 5 was admitted to List 'E' vide an order, dated 15th July, 1966 i. e. 6 days later to the appellant, therefore, he was senior to him also. All these Respondents were considered for confirmation after their two years period of probation but the appellant was ignored due to certain enquiries pending against him. He was also again ignored due to adverse remarks recorded in his A. C. Rs for the year 1972. The remarks for the year 1972 were expunged, vide judgment and order of this Tribunal, dated 18th September, 1979 and the said order was implemented by the D. I.-G Police, vide order, dated 4th October, 1979. After the expunction of said adverse remarks the appellant was also placed on probation w. e. f. 13th April, 1978 vide order, dated 15th April, 1978 which was notified on 19th April, 1978. Consequently the appellant submitted his application, dated 19th November, 1978 for his pro forma promotion and appeared before Respondent No, 2 on 2nd January, 1979. His representation remained pending and when the adverse remarks of year 1972 stood expunged, he again moved Respondent No, 2, vide his representation, dated 30th September, 1979 requesting him for his promotion to two years' probation from 25th November, 1970. However, Respondent No, 2 rejected his application vide his order, dated 7th April, 1980. Against the aforesaid order the appellant submitted his representation dated 9th August, 1980 to the next higher authority viz, Respondent No, 3 as the period of 90 days had expired on 8th November, 1980 yet no decision was communicated to the appellant, therefore, he filed this appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the department and have perused the impugned order dated 7th April, 1980 as well the entire record of this case, passed by Respondent No, 2, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range, Multan. Carefully with their assistance.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that when the basis which influenced the author of this impugned order has vanished due to expunction of adverse remarks as well as exoneration of the appellant from various enquiries so pending against him, therefore, he was entitled to pro forma promotion as laid down in Para. 4 (ii) (iii) of the policy letter and rules framed by the Government of Punjab, he was entitled to grant pro forma promotion and no extraneous matters were justified to be made further basis for the refusal of the same.
5. On the other hand, learned District Attorney has submitted that the appellant possessed a chequered record of service and was ignored as well as superseded by the competent authority for pro forma promotion when his case was duly considered alongwith the respondents from time to time. According to the learned District Attorney nobody can claim pro forma promotion as a matter of right and it was for the competent authority to see whether he observes the same or not.
6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by both the parties and perusal of the record reveals that the appellant was conveyed advice for the period from 1st January, 1967 to 13th June, 1967 when he was told that he was rash in his dealings with the public and was asked to mend this habit. It is also on the record that the appellant was again conveyed adverse remarks for the year 1969-70 which remained operative till 8th June, 1971. Although, later on the same were expunged. The record of this case reveals that during the same period the appellant was charged for misconduct, although the enquiry was filed on 15th September, 1970.
There were number of other charges against him for which he was charge-sheeted, one of them being for obtaining a medical certificate illegally. All this led to for his being ignored for substantive promotion w. e. f. 25th November, 1970. In 1972 he again got a bad report for not enjoying good reputation for honesty. However, this entry was expunged by the Service Tribunal. His service record further reveals that he was adversely commented upon in his A. C. R. For 1974, then in 1976 and lastly in 1978. These entries of course were expunged but the adverse remarks for the year 1978 were only partially expunged.
7.
7. In view of above, we cannot accept that the appellant was fully clear of the adverse entries and was free from blemish. The adverse entry of 1978 will continue to exist against him as the expunction made in his favour was partial. We also find that twice in his career he was dismissed from service. First on 19th December, 1972 and second time on 16th December, 1976. In these circumstances the order, dated 7th April, 1980 passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range, cannot be considered unjustified. Moreover, it is always the prerogative of the executive to confer pro forma promotion and outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to sit on judgment over these matters unless and until it is fully made out that a civil servant has fallen victim to the act of discrimination by the competent authority without any justification. In the present case, the case of the appellant is neither a case of discrimination nor it can be said with certitude that the appellant's career through his service has been outstanding and he had fallen victim to some intrigues of false allegations.
8. In view of above, we do not find any merits in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly.
' The parties will bear at their own costs.