MIAN FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER).--The appellant Manzoor Ahmad. Inspector of Police has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, for fixation of seniority. The appellant has impleaded M/S Aswa r Ali Shah and Bashir Ahmad, Inspectors of Police as contesting respondents and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondent.
2. Through his appeal the appellant has prayed that the appellant should be shown senior to contesting respondents Aswa r Ali and Bashir Ahmad w.e.f. 11-11-1976 by amending the List-F.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Manzoor Ahmad joined the Police Department as an ASI on 3-9-66. Subsequently he was promoted to the rank of S.I. w.e.f. 24-7-1971. Then in the year 1976 while the D.I.-G. Police was to consider the names for recommendation to List 'F', the appellant's name could not be considered and recommended because his A.C.R. For the year 1974 was not available on the record at the time of consideration. However, the names of the batchmates (Contesting Respondents Nos.1 & 2) of the appellant were recommended who were admitted to List 'F'. According to the version of the appellant even after required A.C.R. Of 1974 was made available his name could not be considered because while the appellant was posted as SHO Khudian, murder case was registered against the appellant. After the Court decision leading to the acquittal of the appellant he was re-instated and admitted to List 'F' on 9-9-84. The grievence of the appellant is that since the A. C. R. Of 1974 is available and he also stands acquitted from the murder case, therefore, he is entitled to enlistments of List 'F' w.e.f. 1976 when his two juniors batchmates i.e. The Contesting Respondents Nos.1 and 2 were enlisted. The appellant accordingly submitted representation to the Inspector-General of Police for modification of the seniority so that the appellant is shown senior to Contesting Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 w.e.f. 11-11-1976 by amending the List 'F'. Since the representation of the appellant was not decided within 90 days,, therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal.
4. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had throughout unblemished record of service and on basis of the good record he was promoted as Sub---Inspector. The learned counsel for the appellant added that in the year 1976 he and his batchmates were to be considered for promotion to the List 'F' but the appellant's case was deferred because his A.C.R. For 1974 was not available on the record. However, meanwhile his batchmates were promoted to List 'F'. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that subsequently the appellant was involved in a murder case in which he was acquitted from the Court vide orders dated 21-11-1983. The learned counsel for the appellant concluded his arguments while stating that the appellant was re-instated and promoted to the List 'F' w.e.f. 9-9-1984 instead of 11-11-1976 when his two batchmates (Contesting Respondents) were so promoted with the result that the appellant became junior to his own juniors. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following cases decided by the Punjab Service Tribunal:-
(1) Case of Mr. Jahan Khan, Inspector (Appeal No.510/520 of 1985).
(2) Case of Mr. Amanullah Khan Inspector (Appeal No.569/503 of 1985).
5. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the appellant was rightly ignored in 1976 because his A.C.R. For the year 1974 was not on the record. The learned District Attorney further stated that involvement of the appellant in the murder case also was a bar for the promotion of the appellant to the List 'F'. The learned District Attorney closed his arguments while stating that after acquittal of the appellant he was re-instated and promoted prospectively and the appellant could not claim as of right his promotion retrospectively and the promotion is to be determined not merely on seniority but also on the fitness and good record.
6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by learned counsel for the appellant and learned District Attorney for the respondents. We have also consulted the relevant record. We are of the considered opinion that it is understandable that the appellant was ignored in 1976 because his A.C.R. For the year 1974 was no' available at the time of the consideration of the case for his promotion to the List 'F' alongwith his batchmates. Beside that this is reasonable that the appellant could not be promoted due to involvement and pendency of the murder case. However, after the acquittal of the appellant on 21-11-1983 in the murder case and also availability of the A.C.R. For the year 1974 which was not missing due to his fault the interest of justice required that the appellant instead of being promoted with effect from 9-9-1984 should have been considered for promotion w.e.f. 11-11-1976 when his two batchmates (Contesting Respondents) were so promoted. Without rectification of this hardship the appellant would remain junior to his own juniors (Contesting Respondents).
7. Hence with the above observations the appeal is accepted and the case of the appellant is recommended to the Respondent Department for consideration of his promotion with effect from 11-11-1976 when the Contesting Respondents junior to the appellant were so promoted.
Judgment to be communicated to parties.
No order for the cost.
A.E./61/Sr.S.