' Rehmat Ali, Inspector, has filed the instant appeal whereby he has laid challenge to the order dated 19-6-1998 passed by respondent No,1 turning down representation of the appellant to be considered as confirmed Inspector w,e,f, 27-6-1983.
2. Learned counsel contended that the appellant joined service as probationer A.S.-I. On 6-3-1969.
On dissolution of One Unit, he was repatriated to the Province of Punjab in 1970 and after some litigation with the department who were reluctant to accept his status, he finally succeeded to be promoted as Sub-Inspector with confirmed status w,e,f, 27-2-1980. His junior collegues that arrayed as respondents 2 to 7 were confirmed as Sub-Inspectors on 1-7-1980 i,e, five months after the confirmation of the appellant to the said post. However, respondents Nos.2 to 5 were promoted as officiating Inspectors from 27-6-1983 and the appellant was left out from this list of promotion as well as his fixation in list 'F' compelling him to file a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, and as a result of direction issued by the Court, appellant was promoted to list 'F' w,e,f, 3-11-1986 vide order dated 20-2-1990 and subsequently vide order dated 20-11-1996, he was promoted as confirmed Inspector w,e,f, 21-10-1988. However, his prayer to be brought on list 'F' w,e,f, 8-2-1983 and his promotion as confirmed Inspector from 3-11-1986 failed to dut any ice with respondent No,1, as such he was constrained to bring the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel contended that respondents Nos.2 to 7 who were inducted in service, five months after the appellant were appointed as officiating Sub-Inspectors were admitted to list 'F' on 8-2-1983 and were promoted as Inspector w,e,f, 27-6-1983 and he was left out from the race because respondent No,1 considered his chequered service record as a hindrance to be admitted to list 'F' alongwith his colleagues as well .As his promotion to the post of Inspector w,e,f, 27-6-1983.
4. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Tribunal to the comments filed by respondent No,1 as well Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, in which it has been stated that appellant was censured twice in the year 1980 and was also burdened with two years forfeiture of approved service in 1983 as a result of which promotion now sought was denied to him.
5. Learned counsel in the first instance vehemently contended that denying him promotion as a result of two censures in the year 1980 and A forfeiture of two years approved service in the year 1983 cannot stand in his way as all the three punishments are of the nature of minor penalties and it is a well-established law that minor penalty cannot stand in the way of the incumbent to seek promotion. He relied upon a number of rulings of the apex Court as well as Federal Service Tribunal as also of this Tribunal precedent case of M.R. Khalid v. Government of the Punjab 1991 PLC (C.S.)
138 was relied to state that after filing of the appeal, appellant was admitted to F' list on 21-10-1986 and was promoted as Inspector on 21-10-1988, therefore, the three punishments by way of minor penalty cannot stand in his way for seeking pro forma promotion w,e,f, 27-6-1983, the date when his batch-mates were promoted. Reliance was also placed on an unreported judgment of this Tribunal in Service Appeal No,150 of 1992 titled Muhammad Fazil. Sub-Inspector No,R-195 v. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi etc. Conversely, learned District Attorney of factual' plinth does not seriously contest the submission made by the counsel for the appellant, however, supports the order of respondent.
6. I have considered the arguments in real earnest and have also perused the record. It is true that minor punishment cannot stand in the way of incumbent to seek promotion. Apart from this during the pendency of the appeal, appellant was brought on list "F' on 21-10-1986 and in the first instance was promoted on officiating basis as Inspector w,e,f, 31-11-1986 and later on was confirmed in the same post on 21-10-1988. Where did the three punishments, two of censures awarded in 1980 and one of forfeiture of two years approved service go; evaporate in thin air or were they in existence?
The answer is in the affirmative that these punishments were very much on the board. If the appellant could be brought on list ' F' on 21-10-1986 and be confirmed as Inspector on 21-10-1988, then why the promotion and bringing his name on list 'F' be not relegated to back date i,e, 8-2-1983 and 27-6-1983 respectively as claimed by him on the basis of seniority awarded to his batchmates arrayed as respondents Nos.2 to 7. To the contrary in the order dated 5th May. 2001, bearing No,SE- I/1900/E-V, captioned as "Revised Promotion/Confirmation in the rank of Inspector" ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1984 SCMR 286 and 1996 SCMR 1185 have been quoted stating that equal treatment to all other officers who had not come up before the Tribunal seeking the same relief and that benefit of such determination cannot be denied to a civil servant on the ground that he was not party to litigation before Tribunal.
7. The upshot of the decision, therefore, is that the appellant has succeeded in convincing the Tribunal that he is entitled to be brought on list 'F' w,e,f, 8-2-1983 and to be promoted as officiating Inspector w,e,f, 27-6-1983. Appeal is accepted with the aforesaid observations and with a further 'direction to the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for further promotion as D.S.P.
Earlier within a period of six months commencing from today.