' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-- Nisar Ahmad, A.S.I. No,300, Special Branch, Faisalabad has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded Nos,1 to 3 mentioned above as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that order dated 24-6-1982 passed by the I.G.P.
Punjab, Lahore and the order dated 24-2-1979 passed by the D.I.-G. Sargodha Range, Sargodha, he set aside. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed that the appellant he promoted as S.I. On the basis of big Reniority-cum-fittnee. It has further been prayed that the appellant be allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from 1-12-1975.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the Police Force as constable on 1-11-1954. He was promoted to the rank of Officiating Head Constable in the year 1961. In the year 1969 the appellant was found guilty of the charge of dereliction of duty and was reverted to the rank of Constable. His increment for a period of 3. Years was also withheld by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad. He preferred an appeal before the D.I.-G., Sargodha Range, Sargodha, which was rejected. Lie submitted a petition before the I.-G. Police, Punjab, Lahore. He was reinstated as an Officiating Head Constable, but the punishment of withholding increment for a period of 3 years was upheld by the I.G.P. Vide his order dated 8-5-1970. The appellant qualified Intermediate Class Course in the year 1971-72 and was promoted to the rank of Officiating A.S.I. w,e,f, 15-5-1972. In the year 1975 the appellant's efficiency bar was withheld with effect from 1-12-1975 due to the alleged adverse record of 1969 and 1973. Soon after that the efficiency bar was further withheld with effect from 1-12-1976 for one year and again on third occasion the appellant's pay in the revised Pay Scale with effect from 1-5-1977 was also withheld. After that the appellant's efficiency bar in the light of the National Pay Scale still continues to be withheld. The appellant submitted representations to the D.I.G. Sargodha Range, Sargodha which was rejected vide order dated 24-2- 1979. The appellant filed a revision petition before the I.-G. Police, Punjab, Lahore which was also rejected by the order dated 24-6-1982. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties i,e, Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.G.
Humayun, District Attorney for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant has been victimised by the respondents and the appellant has suffered financial loss as the promotion of the appellant and his seniority has been denied by the respondents, arbitrarily. The efficiency bar of the appellant was withheld on 1-12-1975 due to old adverse record of the year 1969 and 1973. The appellant was promoted as Officiating A.S.I. w,e,f, 15-5-1972 and the adverse remarks of 1973 were also expunged by the D.I.-G. Hence, the record of 1969 and 1973 was in fact, washed away and did not stand for withholding the efficiency bar w,e,f, 1-12-1975. The record also did not stand in the way of further promotion as it is visualized by the 1.-G.'s letter dated 5-8-1955, which clearly lays as follows:-- "Once a subordinate is promoted from a lower to the Higher rank or brought on any promotion list the record of service of the individual concerned before the last date of his promotion or inclusion in a promotion list cannot be used against him."
' It has been further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the D.I.G. Had not considered the seniority of the appellant on the basis of the previous minor punishments. Thus, the promotion of the appellant has been denied which is against the natural justice. He has also submitted that in this regard the principles relating to promotion from one post to another consistently laid down by the circular letters i,e, "Merit does not mean good service record only. It includes experience qualifications and suitability for the post or service to which promotion is being made" have not been properly appreciated. It has been vehemently contested by the learned counsel for the appellant that the promotion to the appellant could not have been denied on the basis of the principles mentioned above, but unfortunately without there being any rhyme or reason, the appellant has not been considered for further promotion alongwith his other junior colleagues. Concluding his arguments he has submitted that the respondents be directed to allow the appellant to cross the efficiency bar w,e,f, 1-12-1975 and also due promotion be awarded to the appellant the basis of the seniority-cum-fitness.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has stoutly rebutted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of the parawise comments submitted by the respondents. It has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that the appellant has checkered service record. His efficiency bar w,e,f, 1-12-1975 has rightly been withheld and also he does not deserve any promotion on the basis of his bad service record.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case very carefully. The service record of the appellant shows that:--
(1) He was awarded censure on 13-2-1969 by the S.P. Faisalabad on the charge of absence from duty.
(2) In the year 1969 he was found guilty of charge of dereliction of duty and was reverted to the rank of constable. His increment for a period of three years was also withheld by the S.P.
Faisalabad. On the revision petition to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, he was reinstated as an Officiating Head Constable, but the punishment of withholding increment for a period of three years was upheld by the Inspector-General of Police vide his order dated 8-5-1970.
(3) He was awarded censure on 4-10-1973 by the S.P. Mianwali on having been found negligent in the performance of his official duties.
(4) He was awarded censure on the charge of misconduct by the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha in the year 1978 (this punishment was set aside by the appellate authority).
(5) One year approved service was forfeited by the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha on 23-12- 1978 (this punishment was converted into censure by the appellate authority).
(6) He was awarded censure for poor performance by the Superintendent of Police, Jhang while investigating the case F.I.R. No,193/80 under sections 468/471, 201/420, 148/149, P,P.C., P.S. Qadirpur.
As the appellant had failed to improve his working, hence he was considered not fit to cross the efficiency bar which was due on 1-12-1975 and was also not considered suitable for further promotion by the respondents.
8. By going through the service record of the appellant, we have satisfied ourselves that he has a checkered record of service and the respondents have acted rightly in withholding his efficiency bar due on 1-12-1975 and also declaring him not suitable for further promotion.
9. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.
' There are no orders as to costs.