SARFRAZ HASSAN (MEMBER).--Head Constable No. 130 Ahmad Shah, Police Station Bhai Pheru, District Kasur has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab and "Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore" as respondents No.1 and 2 respectively.
(The correct designation of respondent No. 2 is Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore.)
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that order dated 3-10-1985 and 22-4-1986 passed by respondent No.1 be set aside and direction be issued to respondent No.1 to reconsider his case at personal level for relaxation of upper age limit for a period of one year and five months so that he could undergo the Intermediate Class Course commencing in October, 1986.
3. The facts of the case are that the appellant was promoted as Head Constable in 1977 and confirmed as such on 1-10-1982. However, due to his bad record of service, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lahore Range did not select him for Intermediate Class Course due to start on 1- 4-1985.
On 28-4-1985, the appellant submitted a representation to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab stating that the D.I.-G. Lahore Range had not selected him for the Intermediate Class Course which commenced on 1-4-1985 although it was his last chance and that D.I.G. Lahore Range selected his two juniors instead. The appellant represented that a compassionate view may be taken of his circumstances and he may be selected for the next Intermediate Class Course after giving him necessary relaxation of upper age limit. However, vide his order No. 2236/30-2 dated 3-10-1985, the Inspector General of Police, Punjab rejected his representation.
The appellant submitted another representation requesting that he may be selected for the next Intermediate Class Course after giving him necessary relaxation in the upper age limit. However, vide his No. 1459/T-2 dated 7-4-1986 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lahore Range, the Inspector General of Police Punjab, rejected his second representation in the following words:- "The case of H.C. Ahmad Shah No. 130 of Kasur district for relaxation of his upper age limit to undergo Intermediate Class Course has already been rejected vide this office memorandum No. 12236/T-2 dated 3-10-1985. Since the case of the representative has already been rejected, no further action on his fresh application can be taken by this office."
The above quoted orders of the I.G.P. Were conveyed to the appellant by D.I.-G. Lahore Range vide his No. 13705-6/SRC dated 22-4-1986. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Deputy District Attorney and have also perused the record of the case with their assistance.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted the following main points:-
(i) On the basis of minor punishments, D.I.-G. Lahore Range ignored the appellant for the Intermediate Class Course although it was his last chance and instead selected his two juniors.
(ii) This was a case of discrimination on the part of respondent No.1 as indicated below:-
(a) Head Constable No. 803 Mubarak Ali was granted relaxation in upper age limit to the extent of one year and five months vide I.G.P. No. 350/T-11 dated 24-1-1985.
(b) Head Constable No. 201 Manzoor Ahmad of Sahiwal District was granted relaxation in upper age limit for Intermediate Class Course and he is since officiating as A . S.I.
(c) Head Constable No. 68 Muhammad Chiragh was also granted relaxation in age and was deputed for this course.
(d) No doubt relaxation of upper age limit in such cases is a matter of discretion with the Inspector General and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. However, this was a case of discrimination against the appellant and the Inspector General of Police did not exercise his discretion properly.
(i.e)In Appeal No. 839/464 of 1985, Asghar Ali v. Inspector General of Police decided on 29-3-1986, the Punjab Service Tribunal directed respondent No. 1 to reconsider the case of the appellant in the above aforementioned appeal. The present appeal is of a similar nature and, therefore, the appellant may also be given similar relief.
6. The learned Deputy District Attorney submitted 'that:-
(i) This was not a case of discrimination. The appellant had a bad record of service and his representation for relaxation of upper age limit and selection for Intermediate Class Course had been rightly rejected by the Inspector General of Police.
(ii) The appeal was without any merit and may therefore, be dismissed.
7. On careful examination of submissions made by both sides and scrutiny of record produced before us. We have come to the conclusion that the appeal is not based .On any good ground and is without any legal force. In this connection attention is invited to the following main points:-
(i) The appellant was ignored by D.I.-G. Lahore Range for Intermediate Class Course due to commence on 1-4-1985 on account of unsatisfactory record of service. However, the appellant did not represent to the D.I.-G. For reconsideration of his case at the appropriate time. Instead, he submitted two representation to the Inspector General of Police after the course had already commenced on 1-4-1985 requesting for his selection for the next course after giving necessary relaxation in the age limit.
(ii)The record of the appellant contains the following adverse entries:-
(a) Two years increment withheld with cumulative effect for misconduct vide order dated 26-7- 1967 of S.S.P. Lahore.
(b) One year's approved service forfeited vide order dated 16-12-1980 by S.P. Kasur.
(c) Placed under suspension w.e.f. 21-9-1984 and re-instated on 17-11-1984.
(d) Two years approved service forfeited w.e.f. 20-11-1984
(e) Dismissed from service w.e.f. 28-12-1986 for misconduct. On appeal, penalty of dismissal converted into forfeiture of 2 years approved service.
(i.e)According to the Punjab Police Rule 13.20 amended on 8-4-1957, any rule contained in Chapter 13 of Police Rules may be relaxed in individual cases for reasons to be recorded in writing if the competent authority is satisfied that a strict application of the rule would cause hardship to the individual concerned. In other words, it is for the competent authority to satisfy itself and decide in the light of the circumstances of each case whether relaxation should or should not be given a particular case. None can claim relaxation of rules including relaxation of age limit for training courses as a matter of right. Therefore, the appellant has no legal basis to claim relaxation in his upper age limit.
(iv) During hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant also conceded that no one could claim relaxation of upper age limit as a matter of right.
(v) As regards the appellant's contention that he has been discriminated against by respondent No. 1, his allegation remains unsubstantiated and baseless as is evident from the following--
(a) In support of his allegation that he has been discriminated against, the appellant has mentioned in his appeal given relaxation in upper age limit by the Inspector General of Police.
However, no details about their record of service, seniority etc. Have been given by him or his counsel to show that their cases were identical with that of the appellant. In the absence of these details, the allegation of discrimination remains unsubstantiated and baseless.
(b) In case of Hammad Raza v. Government of Pakistan, CPSLA No. 1350 of 1979, the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as under:- "As regards discrimination, every case proceeds on its own facts particularly so where specific explanation peculiar to each case is required to be examined. The identity of facts so necessary for establishing discrimination is wanting."
The above quoted observations of the Supreme Court are as true in the present case as in the case of Hammad Raza v. Government of Pakistan.
(c) In support of his prayer that his case should be reconsidered by respondent No.1 at personal level, the appellant has referred to Appeal No. 8391494 of 1985 in case of Asghar Ali v. I.G.P. Decided by the Punjab Service Tribunal on 29-3-1986. However, perusal of the judgment recorded in this case shows that the appellant in this case was a former P.O.W. Who had suffered imprisonment in India for two years and 7 months and his case for relaxation was covered by Policy Letter No. 7217- 571E-ii dated 7-6-1973 issued by the Inspector General of Police. On the other hand, the appellant in the present case is not a former P.O.W. Whose age relaxation could be justified in the light of the aforementioned policy letter of Inspector General of Police.
(d) According to the Punjab Police Rule 13.9(1), head constables who have passed the Lower and Intermediate School Course are brought on Promotion List 'D' if they are approved by the D.I.G.
Concerned for officiating or substantive promotion to tire rank of A.S.I. However, the rule lays down the following standard for admission to promotion list D:- "No head constable shall be admitted to this list who is not thoroughly efficient in all branches of the duties of a constable and head constable and of established integrity."
Keeping in view his unsatisfactory record of service, the appellant had practically no chance of admission td Promotion List 'D' even if he had been selected for Intermediate Class Course after giving relaxation in upper age limit. Therefore, the appellant was rightly ignored by D.I.G. Lahore Range for Intermediate Class Course and his two representations for relaxation of upper age limit were rightly rejected by the Inspector General of Police.
8. In view of what has been stated in the foregoing paragraphs, we have come to the conclusion that there is no legal force in the appeal and it is accordingly rejected.