SARDAR MUHAMMAD SAJAWAL KHAN (CHAIRMAN).----These are two Appeals Nos. 614 and 615 by Muhammad Khan Sabir, Sub---Inspector of Police, Crimes Branch, Muzaffarabad. Appeal No. 614 dated 24-5-1992 is directed against the order of Inspector-General of Police No. 296, dated 4-12- 1991 by which respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were promoted to the posts of Inspectors of Police and the Appeal No. 615, dated 25-11-1991 is directed against the order of Inspector-General of Police No. 16033-44, dated 25-11-1991 by which the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were placed in the 'F list. In both the appeals, the appellant has impleaded Inspector-General of Police, Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad, Raja Rubnawaz Khan, Sub-Inspector of Police, Muhammad Faiz, Sub-Inspector of Police and Muhammad Khan Moughal, Sub---Inspector of Police as respondents for seeking relief against them. Since both the appeals involve common question of law and facts, we propose to dispose them of by this single judgment, a copy of which shall be placed on each appeal file.
2. In the memo of his appeals, it is stated by the appellant that he joined the service of Police Department as Constable and was subsequently in recognition of his best service record and performance in the Department, promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police vide Order No. 128, dated 15-5-1976. His academic qualification is BA. And he has passed all the departmental courses with distinction in addition to that. During the period of his service as S.H.O., he was awarded more than one hundred commendation certificates for his best performance and handling of most difficult situations. He was placed at serial No. 8 of the seniority list in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors of police whereas the names of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were placed next below him at serial Nos.
9,11 and 12 respectively. He was recommended by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police to be placed at the `F list for his next higher promotion to the post of Inspector of Police. But the I: G. Of Police dropped his name from being placed on that list and placed the names of the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in that list who were junior to the appellant in service and were not having better service record than the appellant. Immediately after the entry of the names of the respondents, they were promoted to the posts of Inspectors of Police and the appellant was deprived of his legitimate right of promotion. Feeling himself aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the I: G. Of Police, the appellant filed an appeal before the Home Secretary but it was not decided within the given period of 90 days and hence these two appeals before this Tribunal.
3. By order dated 26-7-1992, the above-noted two appeals were admitted for regular hearing and the respondents were asked to submit their objections, if any, as to the maintainability of the appeals. In their objections, paras. Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of both the appeals were accepted to be correct while paras. Nos. 3, 5 and 6 were denied. According to the respondents the I: G. Of Police was quite competent to drop the name of the appellant from the `F list because his office record was not good. The appellant while posted as S.H.O. At Dheerkot had registered two criminal cases against both the parties when actually the offence alleged was committed by one of them. The appellant was held guilty of misconduct by S.P. Bagh and the punishment of stoppage of his two annual increments was awarded to him. Consequently, the appellant was not placed on the `F list and his further promotion to the post of Inspector of Police was withheld. The appellant has no case on merits and his appeal is not maintainable for being time-barred.
4. We have examined the service record of the appellant and have also considered the arguments as were addressed by the learned counsel of- the parties. On behalf of the appellant it is argued, that a Committee was set up by the I: G. Of Police for selecting suitable Officers from among the ranks of Sub---Inspectors of Police for being placed on the `F list. The Committee consisting of D.I: G. Of Police, S.S.P. And S.P. Special Branch, Muzaffarabad made its recommendations to the I: G. Of Police for placing the name of the appellant on `F list on the basis of his seniority, competency and best performance of his duty as Sub-Inspector of Police. But unfortunately the name of the appellant was dropped by the I: G. Of Police on the sole ground that his record of service was not good. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the service record of the appellant was all good excepting that the appellant had received the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments by the order of S.P. Bagh. The appellant had brought an appeal before D.I.-G. Of Police against that order of S.P. Bagh and the same was pending with the Office of D.I.-G. Of Police before the task of preparation of `F list had ended without incorporating the name of the appellant in that list. Subsequent to that the appeal was decided and the punishment awarded to the appellant was set aside by the D.I.-G. Of Police and there had left nothing on record to block the promotion of the appellant. But the fact of punishment of the appellant set aside by D.I.-G. Of Police remained shrouded in mystery till 4-12-1991 when the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were promoted to the post of Inspectors of Police on the basis of the `F list under the impugned order and the appellant had missed the chance.
5. There is no denying the fact that a Committee was set up by the I.-G. Of Police for the selection of suitable Officers from among the ranks of Sub--Inspectors of Police to be placed on the `F list and the name of the appellant was also recommended to be placed on the `F list above the names of respondents. However, the I: G. Of Police did not agree with the report of this Committee to the extent of the appellant and his name was dropped from being placed on the `F list. It is, no doubt, true that after the punishment of stoppage of increments was set aside, the service record of the appellant had become neat and clean for his future promotion. We also agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order does not specify valid and sound reasons for dropping the name of the appellant from being placed on `F list and there was no material on the file for I-G. Of Police to differ with the view of the members of the Committee. It is true that the I.-G.
Of Police has not highlighted the facts which made him form his view different to that of the Committee. However, it is obvious that the punishment received by the appellant had come to his notice and perhaps it was the only reason that had prevented him from placing the name of the appellant on the `F list. At the same time while making the promotion of respondents he might not be having notice of it that the D.I.-G. Of Police had set aside the punishment of the appellant and the record of his service was fair to consider him for promotion. The `F list was prepared on 25-11- 1991 by I.-G. Of Police and the order of punishment of the appellant was vacated by the D.I.-G. Of Police on 27-11-1991 two days after the preparation of `F list. We have gone through the service record of the appellant and we find that the appellant has a clean slate of his career in service. The appellant had received no adverse entry in his service record despite the fact that he had put in about 15 years service as S.H.O. At different Police Stations. In view of his unblemished record of service, the order of promotion of respondents who were decidedly junior to him was not just and proper.
6. For the above reasons we allow this appeal and after setting aside the impugned orders, we order that both the appellant and the respondents shall be reconsidered for being placed on the `F list in order of their seniority for granting them promotion to the posts of Inspectors of Police. No order as tothe costs.