SARDAR ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). --Anwar Ali, Inspector Police F.I.A. Has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Inspector- General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that he may be granted pro forma promotion from the date when his juniors were so promoted.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service on 7-3-1960 as Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police. He was brought on list 'E' on 30-6-1966 and promoted as Sub-Inspector on 1-7- 1966. When his case for confirmation as Sub-Inspector was being considered, there came a hurdle in his way that he had earned report 'C' in 1972, and thus he was ignored for confirmation. The inquiry which was being proceeded against the appellant in connection with some murder case, stood concluded and the appellant was exonerated of all the charges. After the said exoneration, he moved the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, through his representation with the prayer that his confirmation as Sub-Inspector be ante-dated. The appeal of the appellant was accepted on 25-5-1977. In lieu of the said acceptance of the appeal, he was confirmed as Sub-Inspector on 1-7-1977. In view of the above circumstances of his case, the appellant moved the Inspector-General of Police Punjab, that his name be brought on List 'F' w.e.f.
15-12-1973. The Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, sent the case to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, for his comments, who vide his Letter No. 12549/CC dated 16-8-1977, strongly recommended his case for fixing his date of seniority from 15-12-1973, in a way accepting his claim for the same. The Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, however, did not totally agree with the context of the recommendation of the D.-I.G. Police, but at his own end, fixed the date from 26-6- 1978. Aggrieved against the said decision of the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab he filed review of his order to the said authority. The Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, partially accepted the review and assigned the date of seniority from 11-11-1976. The matter did not rest here, and the appellant brought his grievance before this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide its judgment dated 1-3-1982, found that as the adverse entry of the year 1972, still stood on the record and there was no evidence to the effect that the same had been expunged, therefore, the appeal was not accepted.
In view of the said judgment of the Tribunal, the appellant thought it necessary to get the report of 1972, expunged and moved for the same. In this matter the appellant succeeded and the said report was expunged vide Order No. 6566-69/CRC dated 14-4-1982, by the D.-I. G. Police, Gujranwala.. After the appellant was successful in removing the hurdle as pointed out by the Tribunal in its judgment dated 1-3-1982, the appellant moved the Inspector---General of Police, for placing the name on List 'F' from 15-12-1973. His representation did not find favour with the Inspector-General of Police. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have also taken into consideration the comments so filed by the respondent in this case.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the basic hurdle in the way of the appellant was the report of 1972, on account of which the predecessor Tribunal rejected his appeal and he later on got it expunged from the D.-I. G. Police, as such the, learned I.-G. P. Was not justified to reject his representation because the appellant in this manner, has unblemished record of service. He has also referred to Part-I of para. 10 and has submitted that the same was not without any significance as ultimately the appellant stood exonerated in that enquiry and there was nothing on the record to show that he had chequered record of service Learned counsel for the appellant has argued this point on the strength of settled principle of law and rules, that once the adverse entries are expunged or the inquiry ends in favour of civil servant, then the same factor cannot be taken against him in any circumstances.
6. Learned District Attorney at this stage has heavily relied upon part 2 of Para-10 of parawise comments in which it has been observed by the respondent that there is another inquiry in connection with gold smuggling pending against him and charges have been framed but the inquiry could not be completed as the appellant in the meanwhile had been transferred to F.I.A. On deputation. According to the learned District Attorney, the Inspector-General of Police was fully justified to reject the representation of the appellant.
7. We, in view of the objection raised by the learned District Attorney, summoned the record and have perused it minutely. The record disclosed that in the year 1981, a proposal was made for holding an inquiry into the matter but since then, nothing is materialised, as neither the appellant has been charge-sheeted nor any step has been taken by the authorities to process the matter and to reach at some conclusion. In view of the above situation, we are of the considered opinion that the point raised by the learned District Attorney does not lead us any where and in no way militates against the claim of the appellant that since the entry of 1972, stands expunged in his favour his name should be brought on list 'F' when his immediate junior was so brought on the said list.
8. In view of the above, we accept the appeal and direct the respondents to bring the name of the appellant on list 'F' with effect from the same date when his immediate juniors were brought on the said list with consequential benefits in the light of the observation and facts so mentioned in the earlier part of our judgment. There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties.
A. E. /116/Lb.S