1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑Abdur Rahim Khan ex‑A.S.I. (Retd.) has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974 in which he has impleaded the Home Secretary, Government of the Punjab and Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned reversion order dated 5‑6‑1979 be set aside and all the benefits as a result thereof which are due to the appellant may also be allowed to accrue to him. 3. Brief facts of case are that the appellant Abdul Rahim, A. S.‑I. joined the Police Force on 1‑6‑1946 as a Foot Constable in District D.G. Khan. After passing his Departmental Examination he was promoted in 1956 as Head Constable, in 1965 as A.S.I. and thereafter in 1969 to the rank of Officiating S.‑I. He remained posted at various police stations of the said range. On 5‑6‑1979 his service record was scanned and in view of the chequered record he was removed from list 'E'. In consequence of his removal from list E' he was not considered fit to hold the rank of Officiating S.‑I. and thus he was reverted to the rank of A.S.‑I. He preferred an appeal against the order of his reversion but his case alongwith other was sent to Screening Committee headed by Dy. Inspector‑General of Police, Gujranwala Range. The Committee in view of the adverse remarks mentioned recommended the retirement of the appellant. On 3‑1‑1980 the appellant was retired from service under Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. He had filed an appeal in the Punjab Service Tribunal but in view of the promulgation of Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 the same was rejected for want of jurisdiction. He then went to Review Committee headed by Dy. Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan and met the same fate. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned D.A. assisted by the Representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that reversion from the post of S.‑I. to the rank of A. S.‑I. was unwarranted as the same being a punishment and should have been done in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Efficiency & Discipline Rules. It has further been argued that the adverse entries relating to the years 1971, 1976, 1978 and 1979 should have been ignored as these were not in accordance with the rules. The learned counsel has at length explained to us that the nature of the adverse entries were made in unjustified manner. 5. On the other hand learned D. A. has submitted that the present appeal does not lie as it relates to the expunction of adverse entries and the same still stand and have not been expunged. 6. With regard to the merits of the case he has submitted that the appellant was only Officiating S.‑I. therefore, his reversion to substantive rank would not tantamount to punishment. Once his name was removed from the list `E' on account of chequered record he was liable under the rules to revert to the rank of A. S.‑I. which was a substantive rank. 7. We have given our anxious thoughts to the contention so raised before us and find a lot of weight in the arguments advanced by the learned D.A. We have also seen the chequered record of the appellant which is full of numerous adverse entries in his A. C. R. and cannot justify the claim of the appellant that he was an ideal officer working to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. We further uphold the stand of the learned D. A. which has also been expressed in the parawise comments by the respondent that officiating rank does not confer any right to continue in the same when the authorities find that the person so occupying such rank was unsuitable. In the present case when the superiors of the appellant came to a conclusion after looking his bad record that he was not a fit person to be retained in the list 'E' they struck his name from the said list. Since his name stood struck from the list E' the only course open to his superior was to revert him to substantive rank of A. S. I. 8. In view of the above we do not find any merits in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. However, the parties will bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.