ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). --Muratab Ali, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Peoples Colony, Faisalabad has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals' Act 1974, wherein he has impleaded the respondents No. 1 to 4 as mentioned above.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order dated 6-1-1985/23-1- 1985 (Annexure 'D') be set aside and respondents be directed to consider the appellant for award of special grade of Sub-Inspector from the date his juniors were so promoted and his seniority vis- a-vis his juniors in the grade of Inspector and Deputy Superintendent of Police be re-fixed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service as A.S.I. In the year 1960 and was promoted to List 'E' as Sub-Inspector of Police w.e.f. 13-6-1963. The appellant was confirmed as such w.e.f. 1-5-1970. He was promoted to list 'F' w.e.f. 15-12-1973 and was promoted as Inspector of Police w.e.f. 28-4-1974. In the matter of award of Special Grade his juniors i.e., contesting respondent Nos.3 and 4 were awarded special grade w.e.f. 12-10-1971 (respondent No.3) and 10-10-1971 (respondent No.4) respectively. However, the appellant was not awarded the special grade. The appellant filed an appeal No.248 of 1981 to this Tribunal which was admitted to regular hearing but it was ultimately disposed of by this Tribunal on 12-1-1983 with the order that appellant's pending representation be disposed of by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore which has now been disposed of by the impugned order dated 6-1-1985/23-1-1985 which is the final order in the case. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties i.e., Mr.M.A.Riaz, Advocate for the appellant, Mr.A.G.Humayun, District Attorney and Mr.Ghulam-us---Syeddain, Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that it has been admitted in para 1 of the parawise comments submitted by the respondent department that the appellant's record has been continuously good. On the other hand the service record of respondent No.4 is admitted not to be good. For this he has relied upon the parawise comments which were filed by the respondent Department in appeal No.248 of 1981, previously filed by the appellant. In these comments it was admitted by the respondent that Muhammad Saleem Akhtar (respondent No.4) was considered for list 'F' alongwith the appellant but the then Addl. Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore did not find him suitable for admission to list 'F' and was ignored. However, on his representation, Muhammad Saleem Akhtar (respondent No.4) was subsequently promoted. It was, therefore, argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that" comparatively the service record of the said respondent was not better than the appellant and as such there was no justification for ignoring the appellant in the matter of award of special grade from the same date from which Mr. Muhammad Saleem Akhtar was so awarded i.e., from 10-10-1971. Similarly the respondent No.3, Muhammad Sadiq was also awarded special grade w.e.f. 12-10-1971 but the appellant was ignored without any justification. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, thus, the appellant was not considered for special grade alongwith the respondents who were junior to the appellant (appellant was confirmed as Sub-Inspector w.e.f. 1-5-1970 and the respondents w.e.f. 1- 11-1970) and the appellant's service record was not properly appreciated by the Authorities concerned. Hence, the appellant was not superseded and he is eligible for special grade from the date w.e.f. 10-10-1971, his junior respondent No.4 was so awarded.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that according to the note on factual position attached with the parawise comments submitted by the respondent No.2, it has been pointed out that the appellant was reverted from the Sub-Inspector from March, 1967 to 2-10-1967 for undergoing upper school course. Perhaps this reversion has wrongly been quoted to his disadvantage, though, it is a practice with the Police Department, to show such reversion for the purpose of undergoing upper school course, Sehala by the Police Officers and was not due to any fault of the appellant. Such reversion is a routine matter and it invariably takes place in all Police officers who are deputed for training and it does not affect the continuity of the service in a particular grade or seniority in a particular grade of a Police Officer so deputed for the said course.
In this connection he has relied upon the previous judgment of the Civil Servants Appellate Tribunal as well as the judgment of this Tribunal in case of Syed Riaz Shah, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Case No.81/69 of 1986 decided on 3-3-1986) in which it has been held that such technical break should not be considered to have caused a break in the continuity of service or seniority of that officer. The learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, concluded that the appellant has a better case on merits and as such injustice and discrimination has been metted to him.
7. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has taken a stand that the appeal is time-barred.
He has referred to impugned order dated 6-1-1985 (Annexure 'D'), wherein it has been mentioned that the representation of the appellant on this issue was rejected vide memo: No.14644/E-II, dated 22-7-1975. He has therefore, argued that the appellant should have filed the appeal to this Tribunal within 30 days from the date of this rejection but the present appeal has been filed in February, 1985 and as such this appeal is hopelessly time-barred. He has also pointed out that the appellant has also not challenged the orders of award of special grade to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and he cannot be allowed to do so at this belated stage.
8. On merits, the learned District Attorney has relied upon the parawise comments of respondent No.1, submitted on this appeal. He has pointed out that appellant was not found fit for grant of special grade as he was not found suitable for the same. He has referred to para 5 of the comments which read as follows:- "As in para 2-above. The appellant had not attained the desired standard of efficiency even uptil 4-6-1972, when the then D.I.G./Sargodha Range after granting him personal hearing remarked on his working as under:- During his service he held charge of P.S. Pind Sultani (Campbellpur District) P.S. Shorkot and Garh Maharaja (Distt. Jhang). These are sma ll or medium size Police Station, but are notorious for cattle- lifting. I have advised him to work hard check cattle thieves effectively in the area and to quality himself for heavier and more tedious charge and further advancement."
He has also placed before the Tribunal the original order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, from which the above extract has been quoted. The learned District Attorney has argued that the appellant was correctly superseded and he was not found eligible and fit for the special grade under the Provisions of P.R. 13.1 read with P.R. 13.14.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has rebutted the plea of the learned District Attorney for time limit and has submitted that Office Memo: No. 14644/E-11, dated 22-7-1975 mentioned in the impugned order dated 6-1-1985 in rejecting the representation of the appellant was never communicated /served upon the appellant and as such the limitation cannot be counted from that date. He has submitted that the only final order which has been received by the appellant in rejecting his representation is the impugned order dated 6-1-1985 (received on 23-1-1985) and the appeal was filed in time on 21-2-1985, i.e., within 30 days of the communication of the final order.
The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to para 8 of the parawise comments submitted by respondent No.2 and has submitted that the reading of this para will clinch the issue and the objection of the learned District Attorney regarding time limit of this appeal is uncalled for and without any merits. He has also made it clear that orders of award of special grade issued in the favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 were never notified to the appellant and were not in his knowledge. Thus, the appellant cannot be made responsible for the acts which were never brought to his notice.
10. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have consulted the record of this case carefully. First of all we will deal with the objection of the learned District Attorney regarding time limit of this case. A stand has been taken by the learned District Attorney and the respondents that the appellant was informed of the fate of his representation vide office memo: No.14644/E-II dated 22-7-1975. Thus, according to the learned District Attorney after rejection of his representation on 22-7-1975, the appellant should have made appeal to this Tribunal within next 30 days. Hence, the appeal is hopelessly time-barred. The respondents and the learned District Attorney were given opportunities to produce from the record any receipt or proof of the service/ communication of the aforesaid memo: No.14644/E-II, dated 22-7-1975 on the appellant especially when its receipt was denied by the appellant in para 10 of the appeal as well as during the course of hearing of the case. But the representative of the respondents/ District Attorney have failed to produce any documents to show that the appellant was conveyed above memo: dated 22-7-1975 in the year 1975, as contended by them. An extract from order dated 10-3- 1986 recorded by this Tribunal in the case of the appellant is reproduced as follows:- "In case of Muratab Ali, the crucial issue was that on the last date of hearing i.e., 9-1-1986 whether he has been communicated the result of his representation in 1975 or not. However, the D.S.P. Legal from D.G.Khan has produced a document to show that the record of 1975 has been destroyed.
Therefore, it is not possible for the Department to produce the same."
The above facts make it clear that the respondents have failed to produce any receipt or proof of the service/communication of the aforesaid order dated 22-7-1975 to the appellant. The parawise comments submitted by respondent No.2, against para No.8, are also reproduced for elucidation of this issue: "As regards representation requesting for grant of Special Grade preferred by the appellant in 1981, it was received in this office on 2-2-1981 and sent to D.I.G/Sargodha Range. In this respect the appellant was informed vide this Office Memo: No-10293/E, dated 25-6-1981 through I.-G. Lahore to appear before the Addl. IGP/Punjab on 23-7-1981 but he did not appear. He was again informed to appear on 1-11-1981 vide this office Memo: No.17884/E-II, dated 8-10-1981, but he did not appear before the Addl.IGP/Punjab. Lahore. In the meantime he filed an appeal No.248/1137 of 1981 before the Punjab Service Tribunal, for award of Special Grade in the rank of S.I. From the date when his juniors were so promoted. As per judgment of P.S.T. Announced on 12-9-1983 the appellant was directed to first exhaust Departmental remedy from the Departmental Authorities and after obtaining the final order, seek the remedy from Tribunal, if so desired. The final order on the said representation which was already under process, was passed by the authority and the appellant was informed through DIG/Sargodha Range vide this office memo: No.167/E-II, dated 6-1-1985, to the effect that his case for antidating his promotion to Special Grade does not merit consideration and as such the papers have been filed in this office."
Under the circumstances, we hold that the final order in this case for the rejection of the appeal is 6-1-1985 (received by the appellant on 23-1-1985) so impugned before us and as the appeal has been filed on 21-2-1985, within 30 days of the communication of this order to the appellant, as such the same is within the time limit so prescribed as per section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. Hence, the objection of the learned District Attorney for time limit is unjustified and is rejected.
We are also not impressed with the arguments of the learned District Attorney that orders of award of special grade to respondents No. 3 and 4, were in the knowledge of the appellant. Hence, this objection is also unfounded.
11. On merits, we have perused the record so produced before us. In para 1 of the parawise comments submitted by respondents No. l and 2, it has been admitted that the appellant has good continuous service record. We have also perused the remarks of Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range from the relevant file produced before us, as mentioned in para 5 of the parawise comments of respondent No. 1, so mentioned in para 8 of this Judgment and we are of the considered opinion that the said remarks cannot be considered to be adverse and the appellant cannot be considered as superseded on these as well. We have also not been shown any other adverse record against the appellant, thus it cannot be said that the appellant was not suitable and eligible for special grade under the provisions of P.R. 13.1 read with the P.R. 13.14, as contended by the respondents. Thus, there is some misunderstanding on the part, of the respondents in dealing the case of the appellant. We also find that reversion of the appellant from March 1967 to 2-10-1967 when he was deputed for Upper School Course, Sehala in the public interest, cannot effect continuity/ seniority in his service in a petitioner grade as held by us in Case No.81/69 of 1986 decided on 3-3-1986 of Syed Riaz Shah, Deputy Superintendent of Police.
12. Result of the above analysis of the case is that impugned order dated 6-1-1985/23-1-1985 (Annexure 'D') is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellant for award of special grade as Sub-Inspector from the date from which his juniors (respondents Nos.4 and 3) were so awarded i.e.; w.e.f. 10-10-1971 and also allow him the seniority vis-a-vis his juniors in the grade of Inspector and Deputy Superintendent of Police.
There is no order as to costs A.E./128/Sr.P. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.