1. ' Altaf Hussain, Inspector No,C/349, Traffic Police, Faisalabad has brought this appeal wherein he has impugned the order, dated 14-5-1999 whereby his representation before the Inspector-General of Police was turned down and he was informed vide letter dated 22-5-1999.
2. ' The facts which emanate from the appeal are that the appellant joined as Head Constable in the defunct FSF on 11-5-1973 and after the disbandment of the force, the appellant was absorbed in Punjab Police on 27-11-1977 by being allocated to Sargodha Range. The seniority of the appellant was correctly maintained because the appellant was shown below Mr. Liaqat Ali No,95/FSF and above Mr. Muhammad Amin No,397/FSF in the seniority list officiating S.Is. As it stood on 4-1-1997. It is stated that the matter of seniority of the personnel who were transferred from FSF remained under consideration of the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab and finally promotion list was formulated vide order dated 26-10-1986 depending upon seniority, training, promotion and confirmation of FSF employees in the Punjab Police. The appellant was deputed for upper class course which he qualified in the term ending March, 1987. It is stated that Saleh Muhammad who was junior to the appellant passed the course earlier but the date of seniority awarded to the said Saleh Muhammad and Yar Muhamamd Dogar, was not awarded to the appellant. It is further stated that the appellant was promoted on two years' probation in the rank of S.-I. With effect from 1-12-1981 and was also confirmed from the same date alongwith Yar Muhammad No,97/FSF and 4 others on 12-11-1987. The appellant was also admitted to List 'F' with effect from 15-2-1989 vide order, dated 26-7-1989.
3. ' Yar Muhammad Dogar whose seniority was not fixed from the due date filed Service Appeal No,280 of 1992 before this Tribunal which was accepted vide judgment dated 13-10-1994 and in compliance of the said order, the department confirmed Yar Muhammad as Inspector with effect from 1-7-1988. The appellant complained that Yar Muhammad being his batch-mate and junior to Saleh Muhammad was being given a preferential treatment alongwith Saleh Muhammad simply because they moved this Tribunal and got the order in their favour which by grace ought to have been extended to the appellant as well but instead of doing that in the seniority list of confirmed Inspectors as it stood on 4-12-1996, seniority of the appellant was wrongly fixed at Sr. No,581 whereas his batch-irate Yar Muhammad Dogar who has been allowed date of confirmation as 1-7- 1988 was placed at Sr. No,73.
4. ' In order to get justice, he made representation to the authority in his department which was rejected on 14-5-1999 which he has impugned.
5. ' I have gone through the order under challenge. First three paragraphs have been devoted to facts and fourth paragraph concerns Inspector Yar Muhammad Dogar who, it is admitted got seniority according to law vide the judgment of this Tribunal. It seems that firstly the appellant was also told indirectly to get similar judgment from Punjab Service Tribunal. Secondly his case was turned down as he was awarded punishments in his service career which was in the nature of "Censure" imposed in 1982 and 1983 and forfeiture of one year's approved service awarded on 14-3-1991.
6. ' It is now well established that minor punishment cannot be considered as impediment in the way of promotion or fixation of seniority of an incumbent, therefore, second reasoning given in the impugned order is not in accordance with the law and is hereby overruled. As for telling the appellant to get his matter resolved through PST albeit indirectly by alluding to Yar Muhammad Dogar's case, I can do no better but to quote the passage from the celebrated judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of Sindh through Secretary, S&GAD and others v. Raja Muhammad Inayat Khan reported in 2000 SCM R 1964. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-- ' Public functionaries have to be more reasonable and benefit towards civil servants rather than litigating for sake of litigation at public expenses. Supreme Court deprecated such practice of the public functionaries."
7. ' The case of Yar Muhammad Dogar being on all fours to that of the appellant the moment he made the representation, the concerned authority was supposed to get the matter checked and if found correct should have extended the benefit to the appellant but rejected his claim merely because he has not availed remedy from the Punjab Service Tribunal smacks of discrimination and is in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
8. ' Upshot of the discussion is that the appeal is accepted. The impugned order, dated 14-5-1999 is set aside and the appellant is awarded seniority as under:--
(1) Admission to List 'F, w,e,f, 8-3-1984.
(2) Officiating Inspector w,e,f, 3-4-1984.
(3) Confirmation as Inspector w,e,f, 1-7-1988.
9. ' Seniority list of confirmed Inspector as stood on 4-12-1996 may be modified accordingly. /order accordingly.