' Muhammad Nazir, A.S.I. No, 247, Sargodha has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, D I.-G.
Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad, I.-G. Of Police, Punjab, Lahore and contesting respondents Nos, 4 to 50 (as per list at Annexure 'A') as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 1-1-1983, 11-7- 1983 in so far as they deny the status of probation, placement on list 'E' and promotion as officiating Sub-Inspector to appellant be set aside. He has also prayed that respondents Nos, 2 and 3 be directed to consider the appellant for promotion to list 'E' and probation as A.S.I. w,e,f, 26-12-1982 and also consider him for promotion as officiating Sub-Inspector w,e,f, 1-7-1983 from the dates his juniors have been so promoted.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service in the Police Department as Constable on 24-2-1959. He was promoted as Head Constable and then A.S.I. w,e,f, 1-1-1975. He continues to be A .S.1. Till date. The appellant was dismissed from service by S.P. Sargodha vide his order, dated 27-12-1981. The appellant filed an appeal No, 173/1644/82 in the Punjab Service Tribunal which was accepted by judgment and order, dated 28-7-1982 with the direction that regular enquiry be conducted into the allegation so that veracity of allegations could be tested.
Consequently the appellant was re-instated in service w,e,f, 12-9-1982 vide Notification No, 37614- 15, dated 3-11-1982. The regular enquiry was conducted by A .5 .P. Saddar, Sargodha who submitted his detailed report, dated 10-1-1983 to S.P. Sargodha. The S.P. Agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and filed the enquiry vide his order, dated 29-1-1983 on the enquiry report. In the meanwhile a criminal case was also registered against the appellant. He was tried by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Region, who acquitted the appellant of the charge vide his judgment, dated 15-12-1982. During the pendency of the said easel departmental enquiry the contesting respondents Nos, 4 to 30 who were junior to the appellant were placed on two years probation and promoted to list 'E' w,e,f, 26-12-1982. Thereafter, contesting respondents Nos, 31 to 48 were also placed on probation in the rank of A.S.I. w,e,f, 1-7-1983. The respondent No,2 issued, yet, another order, dated 11-7-1983, whereby respondents Nos, 16 to 30 and 49 to 50 were promoted as officiating Sub-Inspectors w,e,f, 1-7-1983. As the appellant was ignored for promotion vis-a-vis his juniors, he submitted a representation, dated 11-4-1983 claiming promotion to list 'E' as well as Sub-Inspector from the date when his juniors were so promoted. As 90 days have since lapsed and his representation has not been decided by the departmental authorities, the appellant has filed this appeal as admissible under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. However, lately appellant has also been placed on two years probation in the rank of A.S.-I vide D.I.-G. FIR No, 46-51/E, dated 4-1-1984 w,e,f, 2-1-1984 and was promoted in the rank of temporary S.I w,e,f, 4-1-1984 vide D.I.-G. F/R No, 239-93/E, dated 4-1-1984. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties i,e, appellant in person, appellant's counsel and Mr. A.G. Humayun, learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents and have carefully perused the record of this case as provided by the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that according to the parawise comments submitted by the respondents the appellant has been ignored for promotion vis-a-vis his juniors as working of the appellant was not found satisfactory as is evident from the two adverse reports for the years 1977 and 1978. These are the grounds on which the appellant had been ignored for promotion. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on judgment, dated 24-12-1983 of this Tribunal in Cases Nos, 347/261/83 and 348/262/83, wherein the adverse remarks recorded in the A.C.R. For the years 1977 and 1978 of the appellant have been expunged. Thus, the defect, which prevented the promotion of the appellant at the proper time as pointed out by the respondents has been removed against the appellant and he is entitled to be promoted from the same date from which his juniors were so promoted. He has prayed that the respondents be directed to promote the appellant from the same date from which his juniors were so earlier promoted.
6. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has resisted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, also relying on parawise comments submitted by the respondents that the appellant had bad service record, hence he has been rightly ignored for promotion vis-a-vis juniors, on the basis of his chequered service record. Thus, no exception can be taken against the impugned orders as these have been validly and lawfully passed.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have consulted the record of this case carefully. Parawise comments submitted by the respondents are reproduced as below for reference:- Against Para. 6: "As submitted earlier, the appellants' working as A.S.-I. Was not found satisfactory, as is evident from the 2 adverse reports for the years 1977 and 1978. His representations against the said adverse reports were rejected by the D.I.-G., Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad."
Against Para. 8: "The appellant was not ignored due to the pendency of departmental enquiry etc. Against him, but was ignored for the reason of his poor performance as A.S.-I. He was considered not suitable for further promotion, hence he cannot claim his promotion as a right."
Against Para. 9: "The appellant has no right to claim his promotion in the presence of his poor working as A S.-I. His conduct and work remained not satisfactory during the years 1977 and 1978."
The above comments of the respondents make it abundantly clear that the appellant was ignored for promotion as his work and conduct remained unsatisfactory during the years 1977 and 1978, as is evident from the two adverse reports for the years 1977 and 1978 and his representations against the said adverse remarks were rejected by the D.I.-G., Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad. This defect has been removed from the record of the appellant, vide judgment of this Tribunal, dated 24-12- 1983, as mentioned in para. 5 of this judgment, as the adverse remarks for the years 1977 and 1978 have been directed to be expunged. Thus, it could not be said that the appellant's record is unsatisfactory, as adverse remarks for the years 1977 and 1978 do not stand any more against the appellant.
8. Keeping the above analysis in view and facts of the case, the respondents are directed to consider the appellant for placing him on probation as A.S.-I., promotion to list 'E' and promotion as officiating Sub-Inspector from the date his juniors were so placed on probation as A.S.-I/promoted to list 'E' and promoted as officiating Sub-Inspectors so that no injustice is done with the appellant.
' There are no orders as to costs.
Appeal accepted.