MOHAMMAD MEHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA, CHAIRMAN.- M/S Rashid Ahmad, Hafiz Ullah, Asif Mehmood and Mohammad Aslam, Constables of the office of Superintendent of Police, Rahim Yar Khan have filed four appeals bearing Nos.627/89,667/89, 666/89 and 626/89 respectively under Section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned orders dated 24.9.1989 and 30- 10-1989 passed by the respondents. The appellants have impleaded Superintendent of Police, Rahim Yar Khan, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bahawalpur Range Bahawalpur and Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents. Through these appeals, appellants have prayed that impugned orders passed by the respondents be set aside and respondents be directed to restore the appellants results dated 16.4.1988 and restore their names to promotion list B-I.
2. Since all the four appeals contained identical facts as well as law points, therefore, these are disposed of by our this single judgment.
3. Brief facts of these appeals are that appellants joined Police Force as Constables. They were confirmed and were brought on list 'A'. The examination for promotion to list B-I was held in District Rahim Yar Khan on 16.4.1988. The appellants appeared in the said examination alongwith the other constables. After he said examination, 31 constables including the appellants were declared successful. On the basis of said result, appellants were duly admitted to list B-I. After the announcement of the result, a complaint was received by the higher authority alleging that the examiner had shown leniency and given inflated remarks to some candidates. On receipt of directions from the Deputy Inspector General of Police, rechecking of papers was conducted by the then Superintendent of Police. On reconciliation of merit position, it was assessed that 9 constables had been shown leniency and given inflated remarks by the examiner for their admission to list B-I.
Out of 9 constables, 5 constables on rechecking of their papers were declared dis-qualified and their names were removed from the probation list B-I. The case of present appellants was referred to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bahawalpur Range for further guidance/orders but on rechecking/reassessm ent of their papers, Superintendent of Police, Rahim Yar Khan as well as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bahawalpur recommended that these 4 constables may be retained on list B-I on the basis of their merits as they were not affected at all even as a result of the rechecking/reassessm ent of their papers. However, the Inspector General of Police, Punjab did not agree with their view and ordered their removal from list B-I vide impugned order dated 24.9.1989. Respondent No.1 issued final order dated 30.10.1989 whereby the present appellants have been removed from list B-I, hence these appeals.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and perused the record with the assistance of the representatives of the department with care.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that removal of appellants names from list B-I is against law and facts. Conversely, learned DA seriously opposed the appeals filed on behalf of the appellants and submitted that orders passed by the respondents be allowed to stand in the light of comments/report furnished on behalf of respondents. Learned DA further contended that the names of the appellants from list B-I have been validly removed by the respondents in accordance with law.
6. Having heard the parties at length, we have given our anxious thought to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and find that appellants had been duly entered in list B-I. Their names could not be removed from list B-I without any show cause notice meaning thereby that they were not provided any opportunity of hearing. Moreover, under Police Rules 13.8(A), it has been provided that removal of a police officer can be ordered only in case of major penalty. Since the appellants were not awarded any major penalty, the removal of their names from that list was contrary to Police Rules. As for the question of quantum of remarks in an examiner paper, reliance is placed on a case reported as 1988 PLC (CS) 138; relevant portion of which is quoted below: "In our opinion the above difference of marks given by the appellant and Head Examination does not necessarily prove the favouritism displayed by the appellant. The assessment of answer books depends upon the calibre and wisdom of the individual Examiner. A number of elements such as level of intelligence, extent of study and length of experience combine to constitute the examiner's wisdom. Since these elements vary from individual to individual, their sum-total namely the wisdom cannot be equal in all individuals. Therefore, the assessment of answer books made by one Examiner which as pointed out above, depends on how he appreciates the answers in view of his wisdom, will not fetch the same number of marks if the said answer books are assessed by another examiner. There was bound to be difference in marks. Accordingly we are not prepared to accept such difference in marks as a criterion for proving the charge of favouritism. Since there is no other evidence excepting what has been stated above, we are constrained to hold that the charge No.3 is also not proved."
7. So far present appeals are concerned, it has been conceded by the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police that if their remarks are reduced due to subsequent strict marking even then they stand passed on their own merits.
8. Viewed in this context, we are of this considered opinion that impugned order dated 24-9-1989 and final order dated 30-10-1989 being illegal are set aside and respondents are directed to restore their results dated 16-4-1988 and restore their names in probation list B-I. There is no order as to costs.
Copies of the signed judgment be released to the parties according to the procedure of the Tribunal.