' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY, (MEMBER).-- Muhammad Saleem, Constable No, 4220, Police Station Township, Lahore has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Cantt. Division, Lahore, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore and the D.I.-G., Lahore Range, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 8-7-1981 (Annexur. 'A') and the final order, dated 19-6-1983 (Annexure 'D') be set aside. He has also prayed that the respondents be directed to admit the appellant to list 'B-I' from 23-7-1981 when he was declared successful in the examination of List 'B-I'.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Saleem Constable No, 4220 was recruited as contable in Lahore district on 5-12-1972 and continued as such. He was admitted to list 'A' on 8-12- 1975. The appellant appeared in list 'B-1' examination held in May, 1981 and qualified for the same.
The appellant was not admitted to list 'B-I' on the ground that the appellant did not have good service record, had adverse entries to his credit and also punishment for forfeiture of two .Years approved service. This two years' service of the appellant was forfeited vide order, dated 8-7-1981 of Superintendent of Police, Cantt. Division, Lahore. The appellant made a representation to the D.I.- G. Of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore which was rejected vide his order, dated 5-9-1981. The appellant made a revision petition to I.-G. Police and this punishment of forfeiture of two years of approved service was reduced to "Censure" vide order, dated 8-3-1983 of the Additional I.-G. Of Police, Punjab, Lahore. The appellant made an appeal to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore regarding bringing his name on 'B-I' list which has been rejected vide his order, dated 19-6-1983.
Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been ignored for admitting him to list 'B-P from 23-7-1981, the date on which the appellant passed the examination. The reason for not bringing the appellant on list 'B-I', being that he was awarded a punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that this punishment was a minor penalty according to the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 and this punishment should have not been allowed to stand against the appellant as per rules and he should have been admitted to list The appellant's counsel has submitted that not admitting the appellant to list 'B-I' from 23-7-1981, is illegal and unjustified, hence the respondents be directed to admit the appellant to list 'B-I' from the due date given above. He has relied on the judgment of this Tribunal Muhammad Arshad v. Superintendent of Police Administration, Office of the D.I.-G., Lahore Range and others 1983 PLC (C.S.) 918. The appellant's counsel has submitted that the case of the appellant is at all fours with the above judgment of the Tribunal and the appeal in the present case be also accepted.
5. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has submitted that the appeal is time-barred. He has pointed out that the appellant had filed a revision petition to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore against the impugned order, dated 8-7-1981 of Superintendent of Police, Cantt.
Division, Lahore and was decided by the Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore vide his order, dated 8-3-1983. The appellant should have filed an appeal to the Tribunal after this final order within thirty days but the appellant made another unnecessary appeal to the Senior Superintendent of Police which was not competent one. The appellant has filed this appeal to the Tribunal on 23-6-1983 thus the appeal is time-barred about two and half months. Alternatively, it has also been submitted by the learned District Attorney as prayed by the appellant, he was ignored for admission to list 'B-I' on 23-7-1981 and the appellant had filed an appeal to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore which was rejected by him on 19-6-1983. The S.S.P. Was not the competent authority in this case. The appellant should have filed an appeal/representation to D.I.- G. Lahore Range, Lahore who was the competent authority in the case as per Police Rules, 1934.
Thus, the appellant has come before this Tribunal without exhausting the departmental remedy and without getting the final order from the competent authority. Hence, the appeal is liable to be ignored on this score as well.
6. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that keeping in view the judgment, Chairman Pakistan Railways, Lahore v. Muhammad Latif etc. 1984 SCMR 286 the appellant had a good ground preferring an appeal to the Tribunal and time limit will have no effect in this case as pointed out by the learned District Attorney and it was the duty of the departmental authorities concerned to implement themselves, the decision given in the judgment in the case of Muhammad Arshad mentioned above, in the case of the appellant as well as that judgment was applicable in his case as well.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case. The appellant has prayed in his appeal that the impugned order, dated 8-7- 1981 (Annexure 'A') and the final order, dated 19-6-1983 (Annexure 'D') be set aside. The impugned order, dated 8-7-1981 (Annexure 'A') was passed by the Superintendent of Police, Cantt. Division, Lahore through which two years approved service of the appellant was forfeited. This impugned order is nowhere in the field as the punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service was reduced to a "censure" vide order, dated 8-3-1983 of Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore. So, this request of the appellant is uncalled for as the impugned order, dated 8-7-1981 have been modified by the order of the Additional Inspector-General of Police and is not in operation. As far as the final order, dated 19-6-1983 (Annexure 'D') passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore is concerned, this order is regarding rejection of the appeal of the appellant for promotion to list '11-1'. On rejection of this appeal, the appellant should have made representation to the next higher authority i,e, D.I.-G., Lahore Range, Lahore to exhaust the departmental remedy from the competent authority. According to rule 13.7 of the Police Rules, 1934 the authority to approve the entry of 'the name in list 'B' is the Deputy Inspector-General of Police of the Range. Thus, the appeal of the appellant is premature as he has not exhausted the departmental remedy by filing the representation to the D.I.-G. Concerned. Hence, the appeal is premature and is not competent before this Tribunal.
8. The upshot of the above analysis is that the appeal is not competent before us and is disposed of as per observations per para. 7 above.
' There will be no order as to costs. as premature.