1. M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-By this appeal, the appellant. a D. S. P. under the Government of Punjab, seeks multi relief---s viz : (i) the quashing of the order of his reversion dated 25-3-19611 from the post of Sub --Inspector of Police to the rank of A.S.I., consequent upon the adverse remarks for the year 1960 given by the then S. P. Gujrat and since expunged by the order of the Inspector-General of Police vide order, dated 8th May, 1973, and (2) the confirmation as S. I. with effect from 1st July. 1957 when he successfully qualified in upper class course and from which date Raja Mohammad Ahmad, 14 steps junior to him, was confirmed as such and (3) for admission to list `F' and pro forma promotion as Inspector of Policy with effect from 14th August, 1957, when he was awarded P. P. M.
2. The brief background of the appellant's case is that he was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police on 29th June, 1959 on a probation for 2 years, He remained posted from Ist January, 1960 to 6th September, i960 as Station House Officer, Kharian and Kharian Cantt Police Station and from 7th Sep--tember 1960 to 22nd December 1960 as S. H. O. Incharge Pahrianwali Police Station, Gujrat.
3. During his stay at Pahrianwali on 12th of December 1960 vide F. I. R. No. 56/60 a case under section 302, P. P. C. was registered regard--ing the murder of one Mohammed Hussain Goonda, by one Mohammad Rafi accused. On 23rd of December, 1962, the D. S. P. Gujrat reported, as directed by the S. P. Gujrat, that the murder took place in the close proximity of Police Station Pahrianwali, in broad daylight, and it is generally believed that the present appellant know beforehand about the murder of aforesaid Mohammad Hussar. It was further reported by the D. S. P. that the appellant never went to the Illaqa which had gone out of control. Offences against property were committed but no report was registered and the crimes were bucked. Consequently, the public had lost all faith in the Police and the criminals were freely moving in the Illaqa. On the receipt of this report the S. P., Gujrat directed a two-pronged probe against the appellant by District Inspector of Police, Gujrat to investigate the circumst--ances of the aforesaid murder case and the lawlessness in the lllaqa of Police Station, Pahrianwali. It appears that the Superintendent of Police. Gujrat simultaneously, in anticipation of the result of the enquiries, proceeded to frame the charge against the appellant in respect of the subject-matters of enquiries above. Ht further reflected his views in the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant for the year 1960 by recording therein that "the honesty of the appellant was reported to be not above suspicion and he was said to be lacking initiative and was not controlling crime by bucking. He has not sufficient control over his subordinate staff". When the above Confidential Report of the appellant reached the D. I -G. of Police, Rawalpindi Range, he on 2.5-3-1961 directed to warn the appellant on that account and simultaneously passed an order directing the reversion of the appellant from the post of Sub -- Inspector (Probationer) to the post of A. S. t. He further directed the S. P. Gujrat to apprise him about the ultimate outcome of the inquiries above.
4. In the meantime the District Inspector of Police, Gujrat on 24th of February 1961 reported "The defaulter S. P had taken keen interest in investi--gation and official work during the period inspected by the S. P. It is rather unfortunate that he did not succeed in working out any burglary case. I do not find sufficient grounds to frame the charge against the defaulter". It was also reported on 25-2-1961 after enquiry into the cases that "to conclude the allegation of burking and negligence against the defaulter could not be substantiated. Therefore, I do not charge him".
5. On the receipt of above reports, the S. P., Gujrat in the first instance on 25-2-1961 said to have passed the following order: "I have gone through the summary of allegation, the departmental file and the findings of the enquiry officer. The facts discussed by the enquiry officer in his findings bear testimony of truth and is convincing. It is a fact that the S. 1. remained for a short period at the Police Station for investigation purposes because he had to attend other multifarious duties, hence he could not devote much time for combing out the criminals and unearthing the, stolen property. He cannot make use of scientific investigation as no clue was left by the criminals on the spot. One of the burglary cases was traced later on, which was committed by a gang of burglars of village Bhallar P.
6. S. Malakwal. It can also be a fact that the burglaries and thefts committed during the period inspected might have been the work of burglars of other districts. Keeping In view the fact that the defaulter S. I. remained in his jurisdiction for only 59 days out of 182 days covering the period inspected. I feel that the defaulter had not much time to attend to various duties especially the detection and prevention aspects. The case does not appear to be a fit one for charge. J, therefore, order that the papers be filed with the Fauji Missal of S.1, Ijaz Ahmad."
7. It is claimed that the order was duly issued and the photostat copy of the same was still with the appellant.
8. In the matter of the murder case also, the S. P. on 25-2-1961 passed the following order: "I have gone through the file as well as the finding submitted by the D. I. I agree with the Enquiry Officer fn that one of the 11 cases was reported to the defaulter S.1. 1 again agree with the enquiry officer that 7 of these cases occurred much before the posting of S. I. Ijaz Ahmad. One case related to another police station, one was a false case and one case was very fresh. Case F.
1. R. No. 65/60, however, goes to the discredit of the defaulter as through the complainant lodged no report at the Police Station, the S. I. should have resources enough to come to know about the occurrence. The defaulter is a Pakistan Police Medallist and had a good record of service. Another point that comes to his rescue is that the term of his posting to P. S. Pahrianwali is very short. He remained there for 3 months only a period not sufficient enough to establish himself. He is, however, severely warned to be more vigilant and resourceful in -future.
9. Regarding the allegation of negligence in taking timely preventive action under section 107, Cr. P. C., between the parties involved in a case F.
1. R. No. 56/60 under section 302, P. P. C. I am satisfied with the findings of the enquiry officers and exonerate the defaulter in this respect.
10. The order has been announced to the Defaulters."
11. The appellant claimed to have collected the copy of above order. However, subsequently another order was issued by the S.1. on 13th of April, 1961 in lieu of the order, dated 25th of February 1961, the original of which was collected back by the S. P., in which the following words were added towards the end of the Tribunal order "and the officer warned". According to the appellant the original order was taken by the S P. Gujrat from the appellant and was destroyed. Similarly in the other order in the and of the first paragraph the following words were added.
12. "In the same connection I have already censured him". The appellant unsuccessfully represented against his reversion and the adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report, before the next higher authority, but it was only after agitating the matter for 12 years that on 8th may, 1973, the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab expunged the following remarks from the Annual Confidential Report: "His Supervisory officer has reported him to be lacking initiative and controlling crime through burking."
13. The appellant was also told that no more representation on that subject would be entertained.
14. However, notwithstanding tale expunction of these remarks his reversion as A. S. I. was not set aside; hence the present appeal before us.
15. The learned counsel for the appellant in the first instance contended that the entry in the Confidential Report made by the S. P. Gujrat was not bona fide inasmuch as the S. P., Gujrat proceeded to make the remarks in the Annual Confidential Report without waiting for the result of the enquiries on the unwarranted assumption that the appellant was guilty: It was vehemently contended before us that the S. P. Gujrat hag no jurisdiction to make the entry in the Confidential Report till the conclusion of the enquiries pending against the appellant. It was contrary to the Government instructions on the subject issued vide Establishment Secre--tary's U. O. No 9(t)-58-S. E. III. Dated, 8-5-1958 (Annexure B) according to which no adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report could be made when the departmental enquiries were in progress. These instructions, the appellant argued, had the force of rules by virtue of section 23 of the Civil Servants Act. Secondly, the contention of the appellant is that the departmental enquiries completely exonerated him and there was no material available to justify the adverse entries in the A. C. R. of the appellant, for the year 1960. It was further alleged that the S. P. in fact to the first instance on 25- 2-1961 had exonerated the appellant but after the receipt of the order of the D.
1. G. Rawalpindi Range (No. 4204/H. C., dated 25-3-61 (Annexure 'A') which required him to report the out come of the enquiries to him, he proceeded to tamper with his original order by inserting some additional remarks in the order referred to above somewhere in April, 1961. He appeared to have done so to justify the action already taken by him against the appellant. According to appellant, it was totally unauthori--sed and was not fair on his part and in fact he had no authority to insert any such remarks. The appellant on this point summarised his allegations as follows:
(i) Forgery by interpolating the phrase "and the officer warned" in the typed body of the original order, dated 25-3-1961 in ink.
(ii) Calling upon the appellant to hand in certified copies of the interpolated orders, which had been supplied to him free of cost on 11-4-1961 and destroying them.
(iii) Removing the order, dated 25-2-1961 as interpolated by him earlier from the file and destroying them.
(iv) Planting fresh orders instead of the original order in the file.
(v) Antedating orders drafted sometime between 11-4-1961 and 13-4-1961 as orders dated 25-2- 1961. Photostat copies of the interpolated original and totally supplanted orders are filed herewith as An--nexure 'J', 'K' and 'L', 'M'. It is prayed that the aforesaid docu--ments may please be read in conjunction in order to assess the real import and the full extent of forgery perpetuated on this point".
16. Thirdly it was argued by the appellant that the censure being a minor punishment as defined in the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1960, the same could not be administered to the appellant without following the procedure laid down in the aforesaid Rules. The appellant also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in In re: Saddique Javed Chaudury's case (PLD 1974SC393) for the proposition that since the reversion of the appellant as probationer, has been effected on the ground of his unbecoming conduct and work, therefore. it was a punishment which could be ordered only after complying with the requirements of law as to charge-sheet, enquiry and show-cause notice etc. Reliance was also placed in this behalf on 1975 PLC (C.S.T.) 211 with similar submissions. Fourthly. the appellant argued that his record was quite brilliant, he was awarded P. P. M. for his daring performance in apprehending the robbers, and the citation awarding the P. P. M. to the appellant read as follows :- "Sub-Inspector Mohammad Ejaz Ahmad, who was then at Police Post and received the information through the drivers of the Bus. He imme--diately organized a pursuit party and alerted the Police outposts and also made arrangements for checks at the nearly Railway Station. The Police party led by Sub-Inspector Mohammad Ejaz Ahmad encountered the robbers near Khushsalgarh Bridge.
17. The robbers took to their positions behind a raised ground and opened fire on the Police Party. The Sub-Inspector while engaged in exchanging the fire ordered his party to advance and cut off the retreat of the robbers to surrender and anther was killed. One of the members of the pursuit party was also killed by the robbers.
18. During ibis encounter, the Sub-Inspector showed remarkable initiative, enterprise and organizing ability besides commendable devotion to duty exceptional intelligence, determination and presence of mind."
19. The appellant submitted that the award of P. P. M. entitled him to the immediate promotion to the next higher grade as done by the authorities in other similar cases. It was thus contended that after the order of the ex--punction of the adverse remarks, the reversion of the appellant cannot be maintained. Lastly the appellant also conversed further relief regarding the inclusion of his name in list 'F' in the year 1957 and claimed that in order of merits he was entitled to be promoted as Inspector of Police w. e. f 14-8-1957 and also to the confirmation as S. 1. w. e. f. 1-7-1957, when the officer 14 steps junior to him was confirmed. According to the appellant since all the causes of action merged into one transaction therefore he was entitled to press and agitate the matter before this Tribunal by this appeal.
20. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the allegations of tamper--ing with the order were totally misconceived inasmuch as the S. P. was in a hurry and was likely to be transferred, he therefore instead of re-drafting the order made the entities in hand in the order dated 25th February 1961, It was further argued that his reversion from the position of a probationer S I. to A. S.1. is not covered by the ratio of the decision in M. Siddique Jared Chaudhry's case as decided by the Supreme Court. The learned Govern--ment Pleader contended that by virtue of the expunction of remarks, as such he was not entitled to claim the quashment of the reversion orders.
21. After hearing both the parties and perusal of the record, we are clearly of the view that so far the relief against appellant's reversion on 25-3-1961 is concerned the same must be granted to him. In the first instance we fine a good deal of force in his contention that the S. P. Gujrat acted rather hastily in making the entries in the A. C. R., which resulted in the reversion of the appellant. It is the admitted position that the enquiries conducted by the District Inspector into the burking of criminal cases by the appellant during his stay as S. H. O. Pahrlanwali and the circumstances of the murder case in respect of F. I. R. No. 56, dated 12th December, 1961 completely exonerated him and it was not considered necessary to frame any charge against him.
22. From the perusal of the record, the contention of the appellant also finds substantial support that even the S. P, Gujrat in the first instance had agreed on 25-2-1961 with the conclusion of the enquiry officer and has concluded the matter with the simple warning which could not have earned Immediate reversion of the appellant as A. S. I. The arguments of the appellant that the remarks regarding censure were a subsequent addition A to the order of the S. P., dated 25th of February, 1961 also appeared to be' well founded. There was no further material available with the S. P., Gujrat for making this addition. In fact it was on the receipt of order of D. I. G Rawalpindi Range dated 25- 3-1961, reverting the appellant from probationer S. I. to A. S. 1 and requiring the S. P. to report the result of the enquiry, that he felt the need to change the order as a justification for that original report. For this we find support from the facts on the record. The autho--rity of the S. P. to make the aforesaid adverse remarks was itself questionable and open to grave doubts. In this view of the matter we find little justi--fication for allowing the adverse remarks to remain in the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant for the year 1960. The ultimate expunction of the major portion of the remarks also re-enforced our above conclusion. (The instructions of the Government are abundantly clear that adverse remarks should not be made in anticipation of the investigation pending against the Civil Servants. It appears that the aforesaid instructions were not present to the mind of the S. P. Gujrat otherwise he certainly could no have acted in this manner). Even the subsequent rejection of the represen--tations of the appellant, had little justification. Nothing is brought to our notice to justify the aforesaid action. Since the premises for the adverse remarks were never established and were rather belied by the subsequent reports; hence the action of the D. I: G. based on the A. C. R. was totally misconceived. If it is sought to be sustain on the grounds of suspicion as to the honesty of the appellant. It is certainly a reflection on the conduct of the appellant in which event the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in Siddique Javed Chaudhry's case is fully attracted. Since the proved prescribed in the Efficiency and Discipline Rules has not been followed therefore, the order of respondent is wholly untenable in law. The learned Government Pleader has not been able to produce anything before us to the contrary. We accordingly accept this contention of the appellant and set aside the order. No. 4204 dated 25th March. 1961 (Annexure 'A' to appeal) passed by the D. I: G. of Police, Rawalpindi Range, reverting the appellant from S. I. Probationer as A. S I. and he shall be deemed to continue to hold the aforesaid position, notwithstanding the aforesaid order. However, as regards the second relief claimed by the appellant the same is not within our jurisdiction. The cause of action if any, which accrued to the appellant, was finalized long before 1st July 1969. We cannot accept the contention' of the learned counsel for the appellant that the same was in any was connected with the order dated 25th March 1961, which we have set aside. Even otherwise the relief seems to be hit by proviso (a) of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, which required the appellant to seek the relief by Departmental Appeal in the first instance. If so advised, the appellant may seek the relief from the Department itself. We cannot entertain the controversy in view of the bar contained under proviso
(a) and (c.) of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act. 1974. We accordingly hold that we have no jurisdiction in that matter. Consequently, the appeal succeeds to the extent and in the manner indicated above there will be no order as to costs.