ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). --Arshad Hussain Shah has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the I.-G. Police Punjab, Lahore and Mr. Muhammad Masud, Inspector Police No. R/164, Samanabad, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the final order, dated 28-7-1981/5-8-1981 be set aside in so far as it rejects appellant's representations /claim. He has further prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to admit appellant to list 'F' from 30-12-1975 and to give him consequential relief of promotion as Inspector and seniority from due date. The appellant be also declared senior to respondent No. 2.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was recruited as probationer A.S.I. In the year 1966.
The appellant and respondent No.2 both joined services on 1-9-1966. The appellant was confirmed as A.S.I. w.e.f. 26-7-1971 alongwith respondent No. 2. Both were brought on list 'E' on the same date.
Again the appellant and respondent No. 2 were promoted as Sub-Inspectors from 2-8-1971 and confirmed as such w.e.f. 1-6-1973 vide order, dated 5-12-1973 (Annexure 'A'). In the year 1975 D.I.-G., Rawalpindi Range forwarded the name of confirmed Sub-Inspectors to the I.-G. Police, Punjab, Lahore for consideration for admission to list 'F' whereas respondent No. 2 was admitted to list 'F' w.e.f. 30-12-1975 and the appellant was ignored. The appellant was also admitted to list 'F' w.e.f. 11- 11-1976. The appellant has been making representations that he also be admitted to list 'F' w.e.f. 30- 12-1975 the date from which his junior Mr. Muhammad Masud respondent No. 2 was brought on list 'F' i.e. 30-12-1975, but his representations had not borne fruit. The appellant filed an appeal No. 444 of 1980 before the Punjab Service Tribunal on which a direction, dated 1-10-1980 was given to respondent No. 1 to decide the appellant's pending representation within a period of two months.
Thereafter the representation of the appellant was considered by the Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and was rejected vide his order, dated 28-7-1981 received by the appellant on 5-8-1981. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that this is a case of discrimination on the part of the Police Department. Though the appellant was senior to contesting respondent No. 2, but was ignored for admission to list 'F' in the year 1975 when he was considered alongwith respondent No. 2, who was ordered to be admitted to list 'F' w.e.f. 30-12- 1975. He has referred to the parawise comments submitted by the respondent No. 1 on this appeal and has submitted that the only reason given for ignoring the appellant for admission to list 'F' has been that the appellant did not complete 5 years service as S.I. By that time. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that this was also true in the case of contesting respondent No. 2. As the appellant and respondent No. 2 were promoted as Sub-Inspectors from 2- 8-1971 and confirmed as such w.e.f. 1-6-1973, the contesting respondent having the same deficiency, was admitted to list 'F' on 30-12-1975, while the appellant was not allowed to be admitted to list 'F' on this flimsy ground. Concluding his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of the above facts, the appellant has been treated discriminately and great injustice has been done by ignoring him to admit to list 'F' w.e.f. 30-12-1975, the date on which the contesting respondent No. 2, Mr. Muhammad Masud junior to him was admitted. He has prayed that the appellant be also admitted to list 'F' from 30-12-1975, with all consequential benefits.
5. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondent No. 1 and has taken a stand that as the appellant did not complete 5 years of service as S.I. On 30-12-1975, hence he was not entitled to be admitted to list 'F' on that date as per Punjab Police Rules. He has also referred to the detailed impugned order, dated 28-7-1981 of Additional Inspector-General of Police Punjab, whereby the representation of the appellant was rejected and has submitted that this impugned order is in detail and justifies fully the grounds on which the appellant's appeal was rejected. Hence the appellant has no case as he was correctly ignored for admission to list 'F' in the year 1975 and was admitted on list 'F' in the year 1976 when he completed 5 years of his service as S.I. As required under the rules.
6. Rebutting the above arguments of the learned District Attorney, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as I.-G. Police Punjab v. Ashfaq Ahmed and others NLR 1982, Service 226. That case also relates to the admission of an Inspector of Police to list 'F' whereas junior person was given earlier date but Ashfaq Ahmed was ignored for admission from the date his junior was so admitted to list 'F'. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court observed that this amounted to discrimination and upheld the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal, whereby Ashfaq Ahmed was ordered to be deemed to have been admitted to list 'F' from the date of admission of his junior to list 'F'.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case very carefully. We have also perused the parawise comments submitted by the respondent No. 1 on this appeal. It has been vehemently submitted in these parawise comments by respondent No. 1 that as the appellant did not complete 5 years service as S.I. By 30-12-1975, hence he was ignored by the competent authority for admission to list 'F'. The following pares from the parawise comments are reproduced below for elucidation of this matter:- "Pare. 2.--This is correct that the name of respondent No. 2 was admitted to list 'F' w.e.f. 30-12-1975 but the appellant was ignored by the competent authority i.e. The Additional I.-G.P. Punjab for the reasons that he had not completed 5 years service as S. I. By that time."
Para. 3.--It was for .The authority to judge whether he was fit for promotion list 'F' or not. Moreover he was not ignored on the basis of record but because he had not been recommended by the Range D.I.-G. And he had not completed 5 years service as S.I.
On his representation the Additional I.-G.P. Ordered that his name should be admitted to list 'F' in appropriate place. Since the appellant had completed 5 years service as S.I. In 1976, his name was admitted to list 'F' in the list prepared on 11-11-1976 and he was given appropriate place in between S.Is. Muhammad Liaqat Ali No. R/157 and Sikandar Hayat, No. R/162 of Rawalpindi Range with the approval of the Additional I.-G.P. On 8-9-1977. The orders of the Additional I.-G.P. Were, therefore, properly implemented.
Para ground (5).--The appellant was admitted to list 'F' at appropriate place in the list of 11-11-1976.
He was not ignored on the basis of record but for the reasons that he had not completed 5 years service as Sub-Inspector which was pre-requisite condition for admission to list 'F'."
On the contrary the contesting respondent No. 2, Mr. Muhammad Masud was admitted to list 'F" on 30-12-1975 when he also had not completed 5 years of service as S.I. To illustrate this fact, the service record of, the appellant and respondent No. 2 is reproduced below:- Arshad Hussain Shah (Appellant No. R/159)Muhammad Masud (Respondent No. R/164).
(1)Education F.A. Metric.
(2)Date of brith. 20-6-1945 15-9-1941 (3)Date of appointment, 1-9-1966/A.S.I. 1-9-1966/A.S.I.
(4)Date of confirmation as A.S.I.26-7-1971 26-7-1971 (5)Date of entry in list 'E' 26-7-1971 26-7-1971 (6)Date of continuous officiation as S.I.2-8-1971 2-8-1971 (7)Date of confirmation as S.I.1-6-1973 1-6-1973 The above bio-data of both the appellants and contesting respondent No. 2 shows that the respondent No. 2 had also not completed 5 years of service as S.I. On 30-12-1975 when he was admitted to list 'F'. The dates of continuous officiation as S.I. i.e. 2-8-1971 and dates of confirmation as S.I. i.e. 1-6-1973, are the same for the appellant and respondent No. 2. Thus, this is an act of sheer discrimination on the part of the departmental authority to admit the contesting respondent No. 2 to list 'F' w.e.f. 30-12-1975 and to ignore the appellant when the appellant and respondent No. 2 had the same date of continuous officiation as S.I. i.e. 2-8-1971. We consider that proper mind was not applied by the competent authority when the appellant and respondent No. 2 were considered by him for admission to list 'F' and also by the Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab while he considered the representation of the appellant and rejected the same vide his order, dated 28-7- 1981. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan I.-G. Police, Punjab v. Ashfaq Ahmad and others, reported as NLR 1982 Service 226 is also very clear on this issue of discrimination qua his junior, as relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. The upshot of the above analysis is that the appeal is accepted and the appellant is deemed to be admitted to list 'F' from 30-12-1975--the date from which his junior Mr. Muhammad Masood No. R/164--contesting respondent No. 2, was admitted to list 'F', as he had also not completed 5 years of service as S.I. By that date. The appellant shall also maintain his usual seniority vis-a-vis respondent. No. 2, There will be no order as to costs M.