SAFDAR HUSSAIN SHAH JAFRI, MEMBER-I. - The Superintendent of Police (Admin. (.-Lahore noted; vide his order, dated 29.9.1992 (Annexure-D) that the appellant Muhammad Aslam (Ex-Constable No. 119961) measured 55 Feet 6 Inches as he was short in the minimum prescribed height by one Inch, dismissed him from service alongwith 6 other constables whose height also fell short of the minimum height prescribed for the Police Constables. The appellant represented against this order on 10.10.1992 (Annexure-E). Instead of passing any order on the appeal find by the appellant against the. Order of his dismissal from service, referred to above, the D.I.G, of Police vide his letter, dated 10.5.1993 recommended the condonation of deficiency in the height of the ' appellant.
Necessary condonation was allowed by the Inspector General of Police vide his letter, dated 22.5.1993 (Annexure-F). The logical result of such condonation would be that the D.I.G, of Police should have accepted the appeal find by the appellant against his dismissal from services by the Superintendent of Police. However, the D.I.G, of Police proceeded to reject the appeal of the appellant. He did take notice of the fact that after his dismissal from service, the appellant, had applied to the Inspector General of Police., Punjab for condonation of deficiency in height which was eventually granted by the said authority on 22.5.1993. In spite of taking note of this fact of transactional importance, he proceeded to reject the appeal of the appellant and to maintain the original order as regards the dismissal of the appellant from service on the vain excuse that the appellant "should, have obtained relaxation in deficiency in height prior to his enrollment. " He took the view that the relaxation granted by the CPO could not 'be considered to have retrospective effect." He also charged that the appellant "had manoeuvre his recruitment in a fraudulent manner and that he had rightly been dismissed from sendee as he had less than 3 years services." The revision petition find by the appellant against the order dated 27.6.1993 (Annexure-G) was, of course, rejected by the Additional Inspector General of Police, Punjab vide his order dated 10.2.1994 (Annexure-I).
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that once the inspector General of Police had condoned the deficiency in the height of the appellant on 22.5.1993, the appellant should have been re-instated in service y the D.I.G, of Police who had himself recommended the condonation of efficiency in the freight of the appellant. Learned Counsel further states that le Constables Muhammad Latif No. 11994 and Muhammad Ashfaq No. 0587 who had also been dismissed from service alongwith the appellant vide order dated 29.9.1992 were also subsequently re-instated in service. Learned counsel, therefore, maintains that the appellant was subjected to stark discrimination. He urges that the impugned orders were fit to be set aside.
3. Learned District Attorney relies on the written objections find by le respondents. Learned District Attorney as also the .Official representing ne department, however, confirm that the Ex-Constables namely muhammad Latif and Muhammad Ashfaq warp indeed re-instated in service after the deficiency in their height was condoned by the Inspector General of Police.
4. I have heard the parties and .Have perused the record. I am afraid cannot uphold the view taken by the D.I.G Police in his appellate order. The ).I.G of Police, Lahore Range had himself recommended condonation of deficiency in height on 22.5.1993. His recommendation was accepted by the inspector General of Police who allowed such condonation on 22.5.1193. Lince condonation in the minimum prescribed height had been allowed by he Inspector General of Police, the D.I.G Police was left with no option but o re-instate the appellant in service. The argument that the condonation ould -not have been granted retrospectively is hardly tenable. The word :condonation' is generally used for delay and, therefore, it would naturally be applicable to the past as also to the present. Condonation of deficiency could ie allowed by relaxing a rely retrospectively as well, unless such relaxation vas likely to adversely affect others who had derived any benefit from such relaxation of Rules. In the instant case, the benefit thereof would be available o the beneficiary i.e. The appellant who would become 'eligible' for appointment as Constable right from the day he was recruited. To say that such condonation would be applicable only prospectively would be against he facts of the case as well because it was very clear that the appellant had already joined service and had under-gone training as constable. It was, herefore, clear that condonation of deficiency in the prescribed height would be applicable to the appellant right from the date of his induction in service is constable.
5. I do not agree with the D.I.G of Police on the point that the ippellant had secured recruitment fraudulently either, for the reason that it is the recruiting staff which measures the height of the: candidates and. Any failure on their part in correctly measuring the height of a candidate could not be attributed to such candidate unless substantial evidence was available to show that a candidate had secured such appointment by fraud. The observations made by the D.I.G of Police to the effect that the appellant had mannered his recruitment in a fraudulent manner is, therefore, more of a conjecture than observations made on substantive evidence.
6. AIam of the considered view that onces the D.I.G of Police had recommended the condonation of deficiency in the prescribed minimum height, he was legally barred from taking a different view particularly when his recommendation was accepted by the Inspector General of Police as well.
The same would be true of the revisional order passed by the Additional Inspector General of Police because such an order militated against the order passed by the Inspector General of Police himself on 22.5.1993.
7. In view of the fore-going discussion, 1 accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, dated 29.2.1992,27.6.1993 and 10.2.1994 and re-instate the appellant in service with the stipulation that the period from 29.2.1992 till he resumes duty shall be regularised as leave subject to title.
8. The parties are left to bear their own costs.