1. The appellant, Police Inspector, has filed this appeal challenging the validity of orders issued by the respondent vide Notification No, SE. 1/6362/E-1/96, dated 16-11-1995, whereby the orders relating to appellant's admission to F-List on 20-8-1995, his promotion as Inspector on 24-8-1995 and posting as such in the CID, Punjab, Lahore on 24-8-1995 were withdrawn by the successor Inspector-General of Police (the respondent herein).
The appellant joined Police Department as an A.S.I. On 13-4-1980. He was promoted as Sub- Inspector on 2-8-1986. On completing all the requisite formalities and acquiring the qualifying standard for the post of Inspector, he was admitted to F-List of Sub-Inspectors vide Notification No,S.E.-1/4221/E-III/95, dated 20-8-1995. It was followed by his promotion as Inspector vide Notifications No, 4403-II/E-1/95, dated 24-8-1995. Thereafter, the appellant was posted as Inspector in the C.I.D. Punjab vide Notification No,SE-1/4446/E-I/95, dated 24-8-1995. On being posted as Inspector, the appellant assumed the charge on 30-9-1995 vide Notification No,SE-1/447-60/E-I/95, dated 24-8-1995. The successor Inspector-General of Police, Punjab vide Notification No,SE.1/6362/E-I/95. Dated 16-11-1995 (actually issued on 1-11-1995) issued another notification/list of Inspectors to the exclusion of the appellant and some others on 16-11-1995.
1. The appellant took exception to the aforementioned order, dated 16-11-1995 and filed Civil Suit on 28-11-1995 as during those days, the term of the Chairman of Punjab Service Tribunal had already expired and no successor Chairman was appointed by the Government for a considerably long time. Some of the aggrieved persons like the appellant filed Writ Petitions at Multan, Bahawalpur and Lahore. In all those writ petitions, the High Court, had suspended the operation of the impugned orders, dated 16-11-1995. It appears that the suit of the appellant remained pending till 5-9-1998 when the plaint was returned. It was in his background that the present appeal was filed in this Tribunal on 5-9-1998. Besides invoking principle of locus poenitentiae, it was claimed that the successor Inspector-General of Police had no authority to order reduction in rank, which was a major penalty, without having resort to disciplinary proceedings on proper material. It was claimed that there was absolutely no complaint or any other defect in his promotion/posting orders as Inspector and that, therefore, there was no justification for the successor Inspector-General of Police to reverse the clock. It was averred that no show-cause notice whatsoever having been issued to the appellant, the impugned orders offended against the principles of natural justice. The appellant filed a representation before the respondent in terms of section 21(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 read with Rule 14(c) of the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975 vide covering letter of the D.I.G. (CID) Punjab, Lahore No,4695/CID/Admn., dated 30-11-1995. It was duly received in the office of the respondent vide Diary No,N/40528/SE-1, dated 11-12-1995. He also gave a reminder on 11-8-1998 asking for decision of the aforementioned petitions. It was also noted in the reminder that one of the two minor punishments (Censure) had been set aside by the Additional Inspector- General of Police by the Order No,SE-1/1624- 25/E-II/97, dated 18-3-1997, on appeal filed by the appellant and as to the second censure, the appellant had stated that the same was being challenged before the Punjab Service Tribunal.
2. The respondent while submitting his written objections/parawise comments defends the impugned order mainly on the grounds that the record of the appellant showed that he had suffered two penalties of 'Censure" in the year 1991 which still existed hence he was not entitled to be brought on F-List and consequently was not entitled to promotion. It was further claimed that the appeal was barred by time.
3. Arguments have been heard from both the sides and record has been gone through with the help of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney.
4. Rule 13.14 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 relates to grant of Selection Grade to Sub-Inspectors whereas Rule 13.15 relates to admission of Sub-Inspectors in List-F and then their promotion as Inspectors. It will be instructive to reproduce Rule 13.15 (1) and (4) which shortly reads:- " 13.15 List-F--Promotion to Inspector:---(1) The Deputy Inspector-General shall decide, after seeing the officers recommended, and in consideration of their records, and his own knowledge of them, whether to endorse the recommendations of Superintendents of police and forward them to the Inspector-General. He will keep a copy of any recommendation so forwarded in the personal file of the officer; if decides not to endorse a recommendation, he shall retain original in the officer's personal file and send a copy of his own order on it to the Superintendent concerned.
(4) Seniority in List 'F' will be in accordance with the date of entry in that list. Sub-Inspectors admitted to List 'F' on the same date will be placed in that list in order according to their date of permanent promotion to selection grade, and if the date of permanent promotion to selection grade is the same in the case of two or more Sub-Inspectors admitted to list 'F' on one and the same date then according to date of permanent promotion to the time-scale. Sergeants will be shown in list 'F' according to the date of entry in the list. When, however, two or more Sergeants are admitted to list 'F' on the same date, their names will be shown in order of seniority among themselves."
Admittedly, the appellant was promoted as Sub-Inspector on 2-8-1986 and he had passed Upper Class on 31-3-1989. He had, therefore, acquired the qualifying standard for admission to the List 'F' and for promotion as Inspector. As such, the appellant was entitled to be considered for promotion as Inspector in terms of Rule 13.15 as aforementioned. However, he was admitted to list 'F' on 20-8- 1-995 and was posted as Inspector on 24-8-1995. He had actually assumed the charge on 3-9- 1995 vide order issued by D.I.-G. (CID) Punjab, Lahore, dated 4-9-1995 (Annexures D). It is, therefore, evident that the order of his promotion as Inspector had already been effectuated and consequently without having resort to disciplinary proceedings on proper material, the same could not have been tinkered with.
5. No show-cause notice was ever issued to the appellant before C recalling his posting order, dated 24-8-1995. The impugned order was, therefore, clearly violative of the principles of natural justice. It is impugned in several enacments that no adverse order can be passed against any citizen Without affording him an opportunity of showing cause in a proper manner. The order in question, therefore, clearly offends against the principles of natural justice and has no sanctity in law. Reference in this connection may be made to (i) PLD 1959 SC 45, (ii) PLD 1965 SC 90, (iii) PLD 1966 SC 536, (iv) PLD 1964 SC 673, (v) PLD 1964 SC 410, (vi) 1969 SCMR 212, (vii) 1971 SCMR 551, (viii)
1972 SCMR 13, (ix) PLD 1987 SC 304 and (x) 1994 SCMR 2232.
6. The plea of the respondent that he recalled the promotion/posting orders of the appellant, dated 24-8-1995 for the reasons that there were two punishments of 'Censure' against the appellant is devoid of any substance and it appears that the competent authority had not applied its mind in a proper way as the Additional Inspector General of Police vide his order, dated 19-3-1997 had accepted the revision filed by the appellant against one of such penalties and had ordered its quashment. As for the second 'censure', Appeal No,1402 of 1998 had been filed by the appellant which has been accepted by means of a separate order of even date and penalty of 'censure' awarded on 25-6-1991 has been set at naught being violative of the rules on the subject. There is, therefore, no punishment of 'censure pending on record against the appellant which can be made basis for reversion of the appellant. Even otherwise, it is time-honoured rule that minor penalties cannot stand in the way of promotion to higher rank and this proposition has been upheld by our own Superior Courts in a number of judicial pronouncement. Reference in this behalf may be made to 1985 PLC (CS) 841, 1991 SCMR 1637 and 1992 PLC (CS) 95.
7. It was, however, faintly argued by the learned District Attorney that the earlier order of promotion and posting of the appellant was issued without fulfilling the requisite formalities in the Central Police Office as the case was not put before the relevant Committee before its issue. This, I am afraid, can hardly be a ground for recalling the earlier order which had already been acted upon and valuable right had accrued to the appellant. The obvious reason is that to ensure that official formalities are completed before issuance of such orders was the responsibility of the Department and the appellant cannot be punished for this deficiency. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while refusing to grant Leave to C.P.L.S. No,1018-L of 1997 held that in the case under hand while making appointment, neither advertisement was issued nor procedural formalities were complied with, nevertheless, it was rightly held by the Service Tribunal that to complete the procedural formalities was the duty of the departmental authority and on this ground alone, the appointment could not have been treated to be illegal and withdrawn, if other conditions of service under which the respondents was appointed permitted the same. Therefore, the appellant cannot be made to suffer for such negligence of the department.
8. The appellant was admitted to list "F" and was promoted as Inspector obviously after thorough scanning of his whole record and fulfilment of requisite formalities. There was, therefore, no justification to re-open the case by the successor I.-G.P. As the recommendation for his promotion was duly made by the D.I.-G. Lahore vide Letter No,834/EC, dated 7-4-1994 in terms of Rule 13.15 ibid which were accepted by the predecessor of the respondent. Principle of Locus Poenitentiae was fully applicable in this case and the respondents had no powers in law to revoke or reverse the earlier order which had the effect of awarding major penalty (see 1990 SCMR 1414). The impugned order, dated 16-11-1995 being repugnant to the principles of natural justice and having been passed without any justification obviously cannot be sustained.
9. As far as the point of limitation, it would be appreciated that the impugned order was passed without any valid reason and the appellant right from his order of reversion had been running from post to pillor to seek relief. He has never been indolent. When there was no Chairman of the Punjab Service Tribunal, he was obliged to file a civil suite and when the Tribunal was properly constituted, he came before the Tribunal seeking relief. As such, he cannot be deprived of his legitimate dues on such technical grounds. Further, the order passed against a citizen should be for valid and substantial reasons. The concept of non-reasonableness and arbitrariness in fact pervades the entries scheme of Civil Servants Act and any order which suffers from such defects merits to be quashed. The legitimate and just claims of the citizens should not be defeated/frustrated on technical ground of limitation. This is golden rule and has been followed by the superior Court.
Supreme Court of India in S.M. Bhatti v. Union of India held that "it ill-behaved the Government which is considered to a model employer to defeat the otherwise well-founded claims of its employees on technical pleas of limitation".
10. The appellant is law graduate and appears to have good service record. After putting in sufficiently long service he now appears to have become a seasoned Police Officer. He has claimed that he had passed Advance Training Course in September 1999 prescribed for senior Inspectors. He has been allowed to place on record copies of the order of the D.I.-G. Dated 26-6- 1999 whereby he was sent for the aforesaid course and a certificate was also awarded to him by the competent authority indicating the successful completion of the course.
11. The record also shows that the impugned order, dated 16-11-1995 had remained suspended throughout and the appellant has been working as Inspector notwithstanding the issuance of the impugned order.
As a sequal to above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order, dated 16-11-1995 is hereby set aside and the earlier orders dated 20-8-1995 admitting the appellant to F List and order, dated 24- 8-1995 posting him as in the capacity of Inspector are declared to be valid for all intents and purposes. The appellant is also declared entitled to all consequential benefits under the said orders and relevant rules on the subject. There shall no orders as to costs.