S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). --Syed Riaz Hussain Shah, DSP, Rawalpindi, has filed this appeal u/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Inspector--- General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, Secretary to Government of Punjab, Home Department, Lahore, M/s Haq Nawaz Kiyani, DSP, Islamabad, Karar Hussain Shah, DSP CMLA'S House, R'Pindi, Sikandar Hayat Niazi, DSP/SDPO, Kahuta, Muhammad Ilyas Qureshi, DSP, Intelligence Bureau, Rawalpindi and Raja Muhammad Saleem, DSP/SDPO, Saddar, Rawalpindi, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 14-1-1985/21-1-1985, be set aside and appellant be deemed to have been promoted to List 'F' w.e.f. 1-7-1971 and to List 'G'/DSP from the date from which his juniors were so promoted.
3. It is observed that none of the contesting respondents appeared to contest the claim of the appellant, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them. However, respondent Government filed the comments, we will therefore, decide, the case on merits.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the Police Department as Probationer ASI on 12-3-1960, and was admitted to List 'E' on 11-7-1967. He was promoted as Sub-Inspector w.e.f. 22-7- 1963 and confirmed as such on 10-7-1968. In pursuance of the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in case No.779/970 of 1980 the appellant was granted Special Grade w.e.f. 25-6- 1971 and List 'F' from 1-7-1971, the date from which his juniors were promoted. The appellant made a representation to Government on the strength of the judgment so given by the Punjab Service Tribunal that as he has been granted promotion to Special Grade from 25-6-1971, he was due to be brought on list 'F' from the same date as well as he was entitled to be brought on list 'G' from the date his juniors were so promoted. The representation of the appellant was rejected vide order dated 14-1-1985. Hence this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that he was senior to all the contesting respondents, who joined as ASIs much later than him. According to him his juniors were promoted and confirmed as Sub-Inspectors from the dates later than the dates of the appellant's promotion and confirmation in that grade. It has been argued that the appellant became due for promotion as Sub-Inspector, Special Grade w.e.f. 25-6-1971, but was not promoted to that rank in view of an adverse entry in his Character Roll for the year 1971. When the appellant represented for his promotion he was informed by the then DIG Police that his case was more to expunction of adverse remarks rather than the award of Special Grade. However, the representation of the appellant was accepted and the adverse remarks expunged. Later on the appellant applied for his promotion to Special Grade w.e.f. The due date but it was turned down. Consequently the appellant filed appeal No.779/970 of 1980, before this Tribunal, in which he made a prayer for Special Grade w.e.f. 25-6- 1971 and promotion to List 'F' w.e.f. 1-7-1971, the dates from which his juniors were so promoted.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant the said appeal was accepted by Punjab Service Tribunal vide its judgment dated 30-11-1981. It has been further submitted that the Respondent Department resisted the claim of the appellant on various grounds including the ground that there were adverse entries for the years 1962 and 1970 as well. However, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that these were not at all adverse entries and these should not have been taken against the appellant while considering his case for promotion. His appeal was accepted, therefore, there was no justification left with the Department not to consider him for admission to List 'F' from the due date.
7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has opposed the appeal on the following grounds:
(1) That the appellant had not completed 5 years qualifying service till 1972, and as such he could not be admitted to List 'F' w.e.f. Any date prior to 16-9-1972.
(2) That the promotion to List 'F'/DSP was prerogative of the Departmental Promotion Committee.
8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and to clarify the first objection raised by the learned District Attorney that the appellant had not completed his five years of service, therefore, he could not be eligible for bringing on List 'F', the statement of Agha Safdar Ali, DSP (Legal) Rawalpindi, was recorded on 5-2-1986, at Rawalpindi who produced the record of the appellant's service and has submitted that the service record he was officiating Sub- Inspector from 22-7-1963, and continued as such when he was reverted in 1967 when he was sent to Sihala and after training he was again sent back to the same rank. Learned DSP (Legal) clarified that this would be a procedure with the Police Department that whenever an Officer is sent to Upper Class Course, he is reverted for the said period and when he has completed his training, he is restored to his same rank. After the clarification of this issue on the strength of the statement made by the DSP (Legal), we have no hesitation to repel the argument of the learned District Attorney that the appellant did not have five years service and thus would not be eligible to be brought on List 'F'. His reversion for a short period, when he was sent to Sihala, was a technical reversion and thus it A would not have any effect on the merit of this issue. In view of the above we hold that the appellant has five years service and was deemed to have been admitted to List 'F' from 1-7-1971.
9. With, regard to the claim of the appellant that he should have been brought to List 'G'/DSP, from the date from which his juniors were so promoted, we accept his claim and direct the respondents Government to consider his claim in view of established facts on record.
10. Resultantly the appeal succeeds and impugned order is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.
A.E./131/Sr.P.