1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents. MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).‑Syed Shaukat Hussain retired Sub‑Inspector has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has been impleaded the Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Lahore, Inspector- General of Police Punjab, Lahore, Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore District, Lahore and Superintendent of Police, City, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the act of the respon dents for treating the service period from 4th July, 1977 to 18th April, 1978 of the appellant in the rank of an Assistant Sub‑Inspector be declared as illegal and the respondents be directed to consider the said period of service of the appellant as Sub‑Inspector.

3. Brief facts of the case as stated by the appellant are that he was promoted as Sub‑Inspector on 10th November, 1970. During the posting at Police Station, Old Anarkali, Lahore, S. P. City, Lahore victimised the appellant, due to official rivalry and passed an order of his reversion to the rank of A.S.I., due to fictitious complaint filed against the appellant in con nection with the investigation of case F.I.R. No. 222, dated 7th April, 1977 under section 302/34, P.P.C. of Police Station, Old Anarkali, Lahore. The appellant filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Lahore on 22nd November, 1979 for declaration to the effect that the order of the reversion of the appellant was illegal. This suit was dismissed by Mr. Mahmood Khalid, Civil Judge, Lahore vide his judgment and decree, dated 10th January, 1981. Meanwhile, the appellant was again promoted as an officiating Sub- Inspector against an existing vacancy w.e.f. 19th April, 1978 by the order of S.P; Administration, Lahore on 19th April, 1978. The appellant filed a representation on 10th July, 1978 to respondent No. 3 requesting him that the period from 4th July, 1977 to 18th April, 1978 be counted as service in the rank of Sub‑Inspector. Since no order on the representation was passed by the respondent No. 3, so the appellant filed the present appeal before this Tribunal, on 26th February, 1981.

4. We have heard the appellant in person as well as the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondent. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant himself that he was reverted from the rank officiating Sub‑Inspector to that of an Assistant Sub‑Inspector, but during the regular enquiry the competent authority exonerated him of the charges and he was re‑promoted. He has also submitted that in fact the appellant was to be re‑promoted as an officiating Sub‑Inspector w.e.f. 4th July, 1977 instead of 19th April, 1978. As such the impugned order is illegal. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney bas relied on the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, dated 10th January, 1981 wherein it was held by him that as the post was officiating in nature when the order, dated 4th July, 1977 was passed, hence in view of section 1 I of Civil Servants Act, he was liable to reversion co his lower post or grade without any notice, which does not create arty cause of action in favour of the appellant. 1t has also been argued on behalf of the respondents that as held by the learned Civil Judge and borne, out from the record tile, appellant was an officiating Sub‑ Inspector and was liable to be reverted as an Assistant Sub‑Inspector with out any departmental proceedings under the law.

5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the submissions made f before us by the parties and have also perused the record very carefully. Admittedly the appellant was promoted as an officiating Sub‑Inspector on 10th November, 1970 and was reverted to his substantive rank of A.S.I. vide order, dated 4th July, 1977. The appellant filed a suit challenging the same order, which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 10th January, 1981. Under the provision of section 11 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, a civil servant appointed to higher post or grade on ad hoc or temporary or officiat ing bass, is liable to reversion to a lower post or grade, without notice. It is also provided in the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 that reversion from officiating rank to that of substantial rank is not a punishment under the said rules and an official can be reverted to the sub stantive rank without departmental proceedings. Since the appellant was an officiating Sub‑Inspector, he has been validly and lawfully reverted to hi substantive post of A.S.I. vide order, dated 4tb July, 1977 which is u n. exceptional.

6. Result is that there is no force in this appeal, which is dismissed with no order as to costs. M. I. Appeal dismissed.