' Muhammad Riaz Kiyani, D.S.P. Police, has filed this appeal to challenge the validity of order, dated 30-10-1999 passed by respondent I.-G.P., whereby his claim for confirmation as Inspector w,e,f, 2- 10-1975 was once again rejected.
1. The respondent I.-G.P. Has since filed his written objections/comments, contending that the powers under rules 13.18 and 13.20 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 were discretionary and that the respondent in his discretion did not find it a fit case to permit the period of officiating service to count towards the period of probation in terms of rule 13.18 of the Rules (ibid) and that consequently rule 13.20 the said Rules was not to be relaxed in his favour.
2. After hearing the parties, I. Have gone through the record. In the judgment, dated 2-5-1995, passed by the then Chairman of the Punjab Service Tribunal in Appeal No,1465 of 1994 brought by the appellant tor the same relief, it was observed that the appellant was recommended by his supervisory officer, namely, the S.S.P., Faisalabad for accelerated confirmation as Inspector; that the appellant's claim was wrongly ruled out on the impression that it would create discontentment amongst his seniors; and that the "performance of the appellant was not properly appreciated to invoke rule 13.20" of the aforesaid Rules. When the appellant was not given confirmation w,e,f, 2-10- 1975, he had to file another Appeal No,61 of 1998 which too, was accepted by the then learned Member-I of this Tribunal on 18-2-1998. It was held in para. 6 of this judgment that without considering any act of gallantry, the appellant "seemed to be straightaway eligible for confirmation from the date of the promotion on the basis of record, good performance as well as seniority." Date of promotion of the appellant as Inspector is admittedly 2-10-1975. The departmental order, dated 24-12-1997 was set aside and the respondent was again directed to reconsider the appellant for confirmation as Inspector w,e,f, 2-10-1975 in terms of rule 13.18 of the Rules (ibid).
3. On reconsideration, the I.-G.P. Came to the same old conclusion and once again rejected the claim of the appellant. He had to come to this Tribunal again in Service Appeal No,894 of 1998 taking exception to the order, dated 5-5-1998 whereby the respondent had refused to exercise his powers in favour of the appellant under rule 13.18 of the said Rules as a sequel to the judgments of the Punjab Service Tribunal as aforementioned. The learned Chairman of this Tribunal, who was seized of the appeal, by order dated 22-3-1999 once again directed the respondent to hear the appellant and pass appropriate orders. On 30-10-1999, the case of the appellant was again rejected by the respondent. This is how the present one is the 4th service'appeal in the series.
4. In the written comments, the plea taken up by the respondent is that the power under rule 13.18 of the aforesaid Rules is discretionary and that such discretion could not be claimed by the appellant as of right. In reply to para.12 of the memo. Of appeal, it was admitted that the precedent of M/s. Manzar Ali Shah, D.S.P., Musthaq Hussain S.P., Ghulam Ahmed Kalyar S.P. Etc. Were junior to the appellant and that they were promoted by giving ante-dated promotions but that his performance in those cases was better. It was also admitted that M/s. Abdul Khalid, S.P.
Muhammad Raza Inspector, Mushtaq Ahmed S.P., Zulfiqar Ahmed, S.P. Ghulam Ahmed Kalyar S.P., Shafqat Ahmed D.S.P. And Mst. Naseem Chaudhry, Lady Inspector, etc. Were also granted ante- dated' confirmation/promotion under rule 13.18 of the Rules ibid.
5. I have examined the service record of the appellant and found that the record of the aforementioned Police Officers was no better than his. There is, therefore, no valid reason or justification to give him a different treatment. It is time-honoured rules of Constitutional law that like should be treated alike in like situations. Service Tribunal is a Court of appeal and has the powers under sections 5 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 to "confirm, set aside, vary or modify the orders appealed against". It is also possessed with all the power of a Civil Court under the said section 5, to pass order on appeal and then to carry them to logical end. On the principle as contained in section 107, C.P.C. The Tribunal "shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed" on the competent authority. All the times, this Tribunal had set aside the orders passed by the respondent refusing to confirm the appellant as Inspector w.e.f 2-10-1975 with a direction to reconsider his case in terms of rule 13.18 of the aforesaid Rules. Every time the purport of the orders/judgments of the Tribunal was frustrated by the respondent. Relief, they say, means "satisfaction of a genuine claim in the best possible manner." The expression "appeal" has received judicial interpretation. It means "removal of the cause or a suit from the inferior forum to a superior forum". AIR 1970 Rajasthan 26 and PLD 1970 SC 506 may be referred to. According to Oxford English Dictionary Volume-I "appeal" means to "remove a case formally from an inferior to the higher Court". The Punjab Service Tribunal being the appellate forum for the aggrieved civil servants and being substitute for the High Court vide article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, its judgments/orders must receive due consideration and respect. There is also a Notification issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab vide No,SOR-III (S&GAD)1- 18/74(pt.II), dated 8-9-1979, to the effect that it was imperative that "the orders of the Tribunal must be implemented if it is not considered a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court." It was further directed in the said notification that the judgment/order of the Tribunal must be implemented within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of the letter from the Tribunal and that failure to comply with the instructions contained therein would be reflected in the A.C.R. Of the officers at fault. In the present case, none of the orders/judgments of this Tribunal was ever challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court. That being so, the judgments/orders passed in favour of the appellant were a fortiori bound to be complied with in true perspective. Discrimination in like situations offends against Article 4 of the Constitution- and is also violative of the principles of Sharia enunciated in Articles 3 and 4 of the Enforcement of Sharia Act, 1991. The present case appears to be at par with the precedent cases. The respondent has indeed the powers of exercising discretion under rules 13.48 and 13.20 of the Police Rules, 1934 but essentially it must be bound by rules of equity, fairplay and justice, and could not be exercised arbitrarily and capriciously. Failure to treat all like persons in like situations without any reasonable distinction, tantamounts to discrimination which is not allowed by law. KLR 1998 C.C. 6 is direct authority on the point.
6. . As a sequel to the above, this appeal is accepted, the orders, dated 30-10-1999 passed by the respondent are set aside and it is directed that the appellant shall be considered as Inspector confirmed w,e,f, 2-10-1975 with all consequential benefits of service. There shall be no order as to costs.