JUDGMENT ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA, CHAIRMAN - This appeal u/S. Of the Punjab Service Tribunals, Act, 1974 is directed against the order dated 16.3.2000 (Annex-H) of the Inspector General of Police rejecting the representation filed by the appellant for ante-dating his confirmation as Inspector.
I
2. The facts of this case briefly are that the appellant joined as ASI on 3.9.1966 and earned promotion to the rank of DSP on account of his commendable performance. The seniority of the appellant in lower ranks was however, disturbed which obliged him to invoke jurisdiction of this Tribunal by filing an appeal which was accepted vide Judgment dated 16.2.1997 (Annex-A).
Consequently, vide orders dated 12.3.1998 (Annex- El), promotion to various ranks as under:-
(i) Off Sub Inspector = 1.7.1975
(ii) Confirmed1 as Sub-Inspector = 1.4.1979 (i.e) Admission to list 'F' = 21.8.1981
(iv) Promotion as Off. Inspector: = 19.7.1982
(v) Confirmed as Inspector = 1.7.1984
(vi) DSP = 20.8.1985
3. Subsequently, the appellant's seniority was further disturbed by respondent No. 1 allegedly on account of decisions of this Tribunal in the appeals tiled by his junior officers. In these appeals, the Tribunal had applied Rules 13.18 of Police Rules, 1934 and confirmation was accorded to the Inspectors in accordance with the latest interpretation of the rule - which was subsequently confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court. As a result of the decision of the Service Tribunal, respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were again confirmed as Inspectors from the dates of their officiating promotion whereas the appellant had been confirmed from the date much later than his officiating promotion. As as equal to this development, the appellant was rendered junior to respondents Nos. 3 to 5 whereas in fact he happened much senior to them. The appellant submitted a representation (Annex-G) which was rejected by the authority vide order dated 16.3.2000 which is being impugned through this appeal.
4. ^The appellant has assailed the impugned order mainly on the grounds inter alia that he has been mettled out discriminatory treatment qua his juniors, that seniority is vested right in Punjab and no civil servant can / be divested of this vested right arbitrarily, that this Tribunal as well as Honourable Supreme Court has held, times without number, that there was no rule laying down that date of confirmation will be the date different from the date of officiating appointment. It was hence prayed that direction may be issued to the respondents to ante-date his promotion as Inspector from 1.7.1984 to 19.7.1982 with all back/consequential benefits.
5. In the written objections, the department did not refute the contention that the appellant possessed good service record. They however, took up the stance that the appellant had already gained his due seniority/confirmation and his representation was rejected by the competent authority in accordance with rules.
6. Arguments have been heard and record Has been perused.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that on promotion of the appellant as Officiating Inspector with effect from 19.7.1982 in view of the interpretation of rule 13.18 in large number of cases including those of his juniors, he was entitled to confirmation with effect from 19.7.1982 with all consequential benefits. He has however, been arbitrarily denied his legitimate claim by respondent No. 1. In this case, the record of the appellant was Undisputedly good. It was therefore, incumbent upon the competent authority either to have confirmed him with effect from the date of his promotion as Inspector or he should have been ordered to be reverted. This however, having not been done the Court shall therefore, intervene and ensure justice to the appellant.
8. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the decision of this Tribunal an Appeal No. 640/96 titled Syed Manzar Ali Shah Vs. IGP and others (announced on 7.1.1998) in which identical question of law was involved. The Tribunal in that case had granted the relief to the appellant by pressing into the service the provisions of rule 13.18. Reference was likewise made to the decision of Appeal No. 1215/96, Mushtaq Vs. IGP and others which was decided on the same lines on 11.6.1997 and the Honourable Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal by means of judgment dated 11.2.1998.
9. Learned D.A. On the other had maintained that the representation was rightly rejected as he was entitled to confirmation after successfi. Il completion of probation period.
10. In this case, police rule 13.18 is the relevant rule which requires to be interpreted in accordance with the judgment rendered by this Tribunal and by the Honourable Supreme Court. The relevant para of the rule reads:- "All police officers promoted in rank shall be on probation for two years provided that the appointing authority may, by a special order in each case, permit periods of officiating service to count towards the period of probation. On the conclusion of the probationary period a report shall be rendered to the authority empowered to confirm the promotion who shall either confirm the officer or revert him. In no case shall the period of probation be extended beyond two years and the confirming authority must arrive at a definite decision within that period whether the officer should be confirmed or reverted without departmental proceedings. Such reversion shall not be considered reduction for the purpose of rule 16.4.
This rule shall not apply to constables and Sub-Inspectors promoter! To the selection grade, whose case is governed by rules 13.5 and 13.14."
11. The reading of this rule would make it clear that its application requires two pre-conditions:-
(i) Existence of vacancy and,
(ii) Satisfactory record of service.
12. In this case, the department has not denied that the appellant possesses good service record.
Regarding vacancy position, the respondents have said nothing and it shall be presumed that the appellant's contention qua vacancy position has been accepted. In order to be doubly sure, his confidential record of service was summoned and carefully examined. It indeed portrays him as a good officer through out his service.
13. The precedent cited by the learned counsel for the appellant namely decision Appeals Nos.
640/96 and 2215/96 appear to be applicable to this case on all fours. It is noteworthy that against order of this Tribunal passed on 11.6.1997 (Appeal No. 2215/96), the Government of the Punjab had gone into appeal before Honourable Supreme Court but the Honourable Court declined to interfere and refused the leave. In this view of the matter, it is obvious that the appellant was entitled to confirmation as Inspector and consequential benefits as claimed by him with effect from 19.7.1982.
Director shall, therefore, issue to the respondents to revise seniority of the appellant as indicated above. The appeal is accepted in the above terms, leaving the parties to bear their on costs.