1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER). ‑Muhammad Akbar Khan has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the respondents as mentioned above.

2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that impugned order dated 31st May, 1980 resulting reversion of the appellant from probation as A. S. I. to substantive rank of the Head Constable be set aside and the appellant be reinstated as A. S. I. in the service.

3. Brief facts of the case and grounds for the appeal are that the appellant was posted as A S I. in Police Station City Sargodha when he was issu ed impugned order dated 31st May, 1980 for reversion from the probation of A. S. I. to substantive post of Head Constable. The appellant has contended that he was not given chance to explain his position and his representation also stands unanswered which was submitted to respondent No.

3. He also pleaded that this is outcome of the main case in which he filed separated appeal bearing No. 228/232 of 1983 (dismissed today). He has further pleaded that apart from issue of the reversion order from A. S. I. to the rank of Head Constable as result of action under (E & D) Rules, 1975 which is subject matter of separate appeal as mentioned above it was not proper to remove him from the probation period.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned District Attorney for respondents and perused the relevant record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant repeated the points raised in para. 3 above. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal on the ground that the record of the appellant is not clean and unblemished. He was reverted from A. S. I. to that of Head Constable due to misconduct proved against him in appeal No. 228/232/1983 which has already been dismissed. He has further submitted that removal of his name from probation is not a punishment and does not require departmental inquiry or issue of show‑cause notice.

6. We have given careful consideration to the facts of the case advanced by both the parties. We are of considered opinion that in the instant case the appellant was working in officiating capacity and reduction to the substantive post did not require any formal/regular inquiry regardless to the fact that the appellant has unfavourable report of the proved misconduct against him and his Appeal No. 228/232/1983 also stands dismissed vide separate order of today. Assuring for argument sake of the appellant, if he could not otherwise be reverted to his substantive rank of the Head Constable without departmental inquiry of show‑cause notice even the action under the Pb. Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 resulting punishment of reduction of the rank to the Beau Constable from the A. S. I. was sufficient to justify it. The reversion in the instant case can also be treated as natural consequence of the punish ment inflicted on the appellant in the principal case bearing No. 228/2321 1983 for which no inquiry or notice required. As such both ways we fine no defect in the impugned order.

7. Hence, we find no force in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. A.E. Appeal dismissed.