' Muhammad Younis, Constable No,1638, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the impugned orders dated 4-10-1987 and 2-1-1988, passed by the respondents. The appellant has impleaded A.S.P., Faisalabad, S.P. Faisalabad and D.I.-G. Of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad, as respondents. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders passed by the Respondents be set aside and appellant's name in List C-II he restored.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant's name appeared in List C-II in the year, 1983 for further promotion as Head Constable. Subsequently the appellant was served with a show-cause notice as to why his name should not be removed from List C-11, as the appellant had proved to be inefficient. The name of the appellant was removed from List C-II vide order dated 4-10-1987. The appellant preferred a representation which was rejected on 2-1-1988. Hence this appeal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents and have perused the record of this case with care with the assistance of the departmental representative.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the name of the appellant was removed from List C-Il in contravention of Police Rules. The name of the appellant could only be removed if he was inflicted with a major punishment. Conversely the learned District Attorney has rebutted the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the impugned orders passed by the respondents being well-reasoned and justified may be maintained.
5. I have given my anxious thought to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and find that the appellant throughout performed his duties diligently; he earned as many as 35 commendation certificates with cash awards; his record is blotless; he was placed on Promotion List C-II as a special case on account of his extraordinary performance; the appellant while posted in Police Lines could not arrest any of the proclaimed offenders, the nature of the duty was such that it was not possible for him to attend to any other work. In Police Rule 13.8(a) for removal of name from list A, B and C infliction of major penalty is a must but in the case of the appellant the same is not attracted; as he has never been visited with major punishment. Viewed in this context the deletion of the name of the appellant from List C-II was contrary to law.
6. In the light of the above discussion 1 find no justification to uphold the orders passed by the respondents and proceed to set aside the same. The appeal is allowed and the name of the appellant is restored in List C-II. There is no order as to costs.