' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-- Allah Rakha, Constable No, 6132, Police Station, Mozang, Lahore has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Superintendent of Police, Lahore City, D.I.-G. Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 30-11-1981 (Annexure 'A') and 24-1-1983 (Annexure 'C'), may be set aside and the respondents be directed to enter the name of the appellant on promotion List B-I, as a result of his success in the test held in 1981, at Lahore for List B-I, with all consequential benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was recruited as a constable w,e,f, 16-10-1976. He was discharged from service w,e,f, 7-11-1978. He preferred an appeal against this order as a result of which he was re-instated in service from the date of his discharge. The name of the appellant was brought on promotion List 'A' w,e,f, 6-1-1981. The appellant appeared in list B-I examination in May, 1981, and was successful, by securing 169 marks out of 240. As to admission of his name to List B-I it was deferred because of adverse entry to his discredit as a result of policy framed by D.I.-G.
Lahore Range, Lahore. The appellant submitted an application requesting therein for admission to List B-I. This application was considered and filed. The appellant made another appeal to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, which was considered and rejected. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that according to rule 13.8(A)(I), disqualification for admission or retention in List B-I, is on account of infliction of any major punishment. He was awarded minor punishment and under the said rule, he could not be refused admission to List B-I. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on earlier judgment of this Tribunal as detailed below:-
1. Case No, 549/1512 of 1981 Haji Muhammad v. S.P. Etc. Decided on 17-5-1982.
2. Case No, 228/1731 of 1982 Itbar Hussain v. S.P. Vehari etc.
3. Case No, 738/904 of 1980 Manzoor Hussain v. D.I.-G. Lahore Range, Lahore, decided on 30-6-1981.
4. 1981 PLC (C.S.) 693 Azadar Hussain and 22 others v. D.I.-G. Multan and 2 others. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that all the above-quoted judgments of this Tribunal are on all four with the case of the appellant and keeping these judgments in view, he has prayed that the respondents be directed to enlist the name of the appellant in List B-I, from the date from which his other batch-mates were brought on List B-I, as the appellant had successfully cleared the examination in May, 1981.
5. Controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned District Attorney has submitted that the case of the appellant falls under rule 13.1 of the Police rules, 1934 and not under rule 13.8(A)(I), as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. Rule 13.1 clearly lays down that promotion from one rank to another and from one grade to another in the same rank shall be made, by selection tempered by seniority. Thus, the appellant was ignored on the basis of his bad service record. Learned District Attorney has relied on ruling of 1977 PLC (C.S) 165 Muhammad Afzal v. Government of the Punjab etc. In support of his above contention. It was also pointed out by the learned District Attorney that bringing the appellant from List 'A' to List B-1, is a matter of promotion which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as per section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. Learned District Attorney, has also submitted that the appeal is time-barred as per proviso of section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, as no representation lies in matter relating to determination of fitness of a person to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade, as such the time runs from the date of impugned order, dated 30-11-1981, which is the final order. The appellant has filed this appeal before this Tribunal on 29-1- 1983, which is time-barred by about 14 months. At this juncture the learned counsel for the appellant rebutted the contention of the learned District Attorney that the matter related to the promotion. It was pointed out by him that bringing of the appellant's name on List 'B' does not amount to his promotion but it only makes him eligible for being considered for a training course at Police Training School, Sihala. He has relied on rule 13.7 of Police Rules, 1934, regarding maintenance of List B-I, which shows that this List B-I, is meant for selection of candidates for admission in the course at Police Training School. Referring to rule 13.1 of Police Rules, 1934, as quoted by the learned District Attorney, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that no promotion from one rank to another and from one grade to another, can take place unless the appellant had passed the training course and attained practical experience after bringing him on List B-I and thus the learned District Attorney has not correctly interpreted Rule 13.1 of Police Rules in this case. It was further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that thus, to bring the appellant on List B-I, is not a promotion, as such the argument of the learned District Attorney regarding lack of jurisdiction of this Tribunal, has no weight. Similarly section 21 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which prohibits representation in matters of promotion, is also not attracted in this case and that appellant was entitled to make representation to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, under the law. Inspector-General of Police's rejection as contained in Annexure 'C', shows that the appeal of the appellant was rejected by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, on 24-1-1983, and he filed the present appeal on 29-1-1983; thus the appeal of the appellant is within time and the objection of learned District Attorney that the appeal is time-barred, is not valid.
6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case very carefully.
7. It is clear from the record and parawise comments submitted by the respondents that the appellant was ignored for admission to List B-I, on the following grounds:-
(1) He was debarred because of an adverse entry. He was awarded fine equal to 5 days pays vide order, dated 27-7-1978.
(2) He was discharged from service w,e,f, 7-11-1978, though he was re-instated in service from the date of his discharge, but was not allowed to draw any salary of the period for which he remained out of service.
(3) The punishment mentioned in item (1) above is not a major punishment as provided under rule 4(1)(a) of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975, whereas the punishment mentioned under item (2) is also not a punishment as the appellant was re-instated in service from the date of his discharge and thus this punishment inflicted previously on the appellant, does not stand in his way. It is interesting to note that both these incidents relate to the year 1978 and the appellant was re- instated in service vide order, dated 17-2-1980. The appellant was admitted to List 'A' vide order, dated 21-1-1981, w,e,f, 1-1-1981. Thus it is clear that the appellant was considered suitable and brought on List 'A' in January, 1981, in spite of these defects. However, on the completion of examination, his other colleagues were brought on List B-I, but the appellant was refused admission to List B-I, on the ground that he had adverse entry. The perusal of the service record of the appellant, shows that there is no adverse entry on the record except that of a minor punishment so indicated as per para. 7(1) above, which too relates to the year 1978. This is also a fact established on the record that the appellant was awarded five cash awards during the years 1980 and 1981, on account of his meritorious service. It will be appropriate to reproduce rules 13.1 and 13.8(A)(I) of Police Rules, 1934:- "13.1(1) Promotion from one rank to another, and from one grade to another in the same rank, shall be made by selection tempered by seniority. Efficiency and honesty shall be the main factors governing selection. Specific qualifications, whether in the nature of training course passed or practical experience, shall be carefully, considered in each case. When the qualifications of two officers are otherwise equal, the senior shall be promoted. This rule does not affect increments within a time scale.
13.8(A)(I) The infliction of any major punishment shall be a bar to admission to or retention in List A, B or C, provided that (a) for special reasons to be recorded by the Superintendent in each case, and subject to confirmation by the Deputy Inspector-General, this disqualification may be waived and (b) after six months' continuous good conduct in the case of censure or confinement to quarters or on expiry of the period of reduction in the case of reduction for a specified period, a constable may be re-admitted at the discretion of the Superintendent."
'Rule 13.8(A)(I) makes it crystal cleir that the appellant could have been refused entry to List 'B', if he had earned major punishment. When the appellant had only one minor punishment that too awarded in the year 1978, and the appellant was brought on List 'A' in January, 1981, after considering this minor punishment so awarded to him in the year 1978, his discharge in the year 1978 and then his re-instatement from the date of his discharge in the year 1981, there seems no justification to ignore the appellant for entry to List B-I, during July, 1981, when the appellant had earlier been admitted on List 'A', in the same circumstances and merits of the case. The mandatory provision of rule 13.8 of Police Rules, 1934, provides that entry to List 'B' can only be refused if the appellant was awarded major punishment. I need not reiterate again that the discharge of the appellant in the year 1978, would not stand in his way because he was re-instated in 1981, from the date of his discharge. So far as reliance of learned District Attorney on rule 13.1 is concerned, I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant can only be promoted from one rank to another after he is brought on List B-I and he had completed the course at the Police Training School as per rule 13.7 of Police Rules, 1934, which is reproduced below:- "13.7 List B (in form 13.7) shall also be maintained by each Superintendent of Police and shall be divided into two parts:-
(1) Selection grade constables considered suitable as candidates for the Lower School course at the Police Training School.
(2) Constables (selection or time-scale) considered suitable for drill and other special courses at the Police Training School.
Selection shall be made from this List as vacancies occur for admission to the courses concerned at the Police Training School, provided that no constable shall be considered eligible for any such course until the entry of his name in List 'B' has been approved by the Deputy Inspector-General of the Range."
8. Rule 13.7 mentioned above clearly lays down that selection for admission to course at the Police Training School, shall be made from List 'B' as vacancies occur. It is thus abundantly clear that unless the appellant is brought to List B-I, gets the training at the Police Training School, he cannot be promoted to next rank. As such the argument of the learned District Attorney that appeal is not maintainable, being a promotion case, relying on rule 13.1 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, is misconcieved and is not tenable. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this case. Also proviso of section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, as relied by the learned District Attorney will not be applicable in this case as this matter did not relate to the determination of fitness of a person to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade. Thus, the appeal of the appellant was validly considered, heard and consequently rejected by the Inspector-General of Police, therefore, the time limit will run from the date of rejection of this appeal by Inspector-General of Police from 24-1-1983. I have no hesitation to hold that the appeal is within time and the objection of the learned District Attorney regarding time limit has no force at all.
9. As regards merits of the appeal, this Tribunal has already held in a similar Case No, 549/1512 of 1981, in case of Haji Muhammad v. S.P. Lahore, and others, vide its judgment, dated 17-5-1982. The operative para is reproduced below for ready reference: "In the case of the appellant we have satisfied ourselves from the perusal of the record of this case that he was not recipient of any major punishment in his career and the only impediments in his way were four bad entries. These entries were the result of minor punishment so awarded to him, therefore, we are clear in our mind that in view of the mandatory provision of rule 13.8 of the Police Rules, the D.I.-G. Of Police cannot ignore him as such. As mentioned in the earlier part of our judgment that the D.I.-G. Of Police himself has unequivocally observed that if he had not these four bad entries to his credit, his case would have been treated at par with others for relaxation of age limit. We are conscious of the argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant that when performance of a civil servant is adjudged, the authority so adjudicating on that matter, would be well-advised to take into consideration of the bright aspects of his career also. Without entering into this controversy regarding bright and dark aspects of the appellant what we have to decide is whether the name of the appellant can be ignored from List B-I on the strength of the minor punishment or not, we have 'no hesitation to find that the action taken against the appellant vide impugned orders is not warranted by the Police Rule 13.8 itself.
6. The resutl is we accept the appeal and direct the respondent to bring the name of the appellant on List B-I."
10. Keeping the above analysis of the case and the earlier judgment of this Tribunal, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are liable to be set, aside. I, therefore, set aside the impugned orders, accept the appeal and direct the respondents to bring the name of the appellant on List B-I from the date, the names of his colleagues were admitted on List B-1, on the successful completion of the examination held in May, 1981.