2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Brief history of the case is that the appellant Ch. Shafaqat Ahmed had joined the Police Department as an A.S.‑I. on 1‑3‑1968. He was later promoted as Sub‑Inspector and confirmed as such on 29‑4‑1977. He was admitted to List‑F on 21‑9‑1981 followed by promotion as Inspector on 21‑3‑1982. He was confirmed as such w.e.f. 1‑7‑1985. He was promoted as D.S.P. on 18‑12‑1989. In December, 1997, the appellant filed a representation, dated 24‑12‑1997 (Annexure C/1) through the Commandant, Punjab Constabulary, Farooqabad, where he was posted at that time, vide letter, dated 24‑12‑1997 (Annexure 'C'). Alongwith the representation, the appellant submitted a long list reflecting his acts of gallantry acid excellent performance. He submitted that in recognition of his acts of gallantry, . he was awarded Qaid‑i‑Azam Police Award. Pointing out to the precedent‑cases of Muhammad Rafique Mirza, Nizam Shah Durani, Javed Hussain Shah, Nazir Ahmed Warraich, Qayyum Nawaz Qaisarani, Javed Khan, Mushtaq Hussain, Syed Manzar Ali Shah and Zulfiqar Ahmed etc., he claimed that his confirmation, right from A.S.‑I. and so on, was required to be revised under Rule 13.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. He stated that he was entitled to be confirmed at all the stages from the date of appointment/promotion or from the date of act of gallantry whichever would be earlier. His representation was, however, rejected by respondent No.l (IGP) vide his office memo. SE‑I/1607/E‑V of 1998, dated 24‑3‑1998, as received in the office of the Commandant P.C., Farooqabad on 17‑3‑1999. This impugned order was communicated to the appellant by the S.P./Battalion Commander, Battalion No.2, P.C. Rawalpindi vide his office Endst. No.614/PA, dated 27‑3‑1999 (Annexure‑E).

2. It was in the above background that the appellant had to file the present appeal in this Tribunal on 6‑4‑1999.

3. In response to notice issued to the respondents, the respondent -Department filed their written comments. Respondent No.3 Sh. Muhammad Siddique has since retired. Respondents Nos.4 and 5 were reported to have since died. Respondent No.6 was duly served but none appeared on his behalf. None was also present on behalf of respondent No.2 from the Department. Accordingly, respondents Nos.2, 3 and 6 were held ex parte.

4. In the written comments, the factual position as narrated by the appellant has not been controverted in the comments filed by the Department IGP. Having heard the parties present and examined the record, I feel that following would be the question to be determined;‑‑ "Whether the appellant is entitled to confirmation as Sub‑Inspector from the date of his promotion as such (18‑12‑1975) and as Inspector from the date of his promotion as such i.e. 22‑7‑1980; and further consequential benefits including promotion as D.S.P. on the basis of seniority list of Inspector who stood confirmed by 22‑7‑1980. " and further benefits including promotion as D.S.P. on the basis of seniority list of Inspector who stood confirmed by 22-7-1980. Following are the unreported judgments which would be relevant qua the above question:- (i) 2180 of 1997 (laved Khan; D.S.P.) (ii) 640 of 1996 (Eyed Manzar Ali Shah). (iii) 912 of 1994, .451 of 1994, 1224 of 1994, 351 of 1994 and 118 of 1992 (M/s. Zulfiqar Ahmed and others decided together). Besides, the dicta in 1995 PLC (C.S.) 1140, 1996 SCMR 1945, 1997 PLC (C.S.) 687 and 1998 PLC (C.S.) 373; are also relevant. 1999 SCMR 1594 also directly dealt with the question involved here. In all these cases question of ante‑dating promotion under section 8‑A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, from the date of act of gallantry or confirmation from the date of appointment or promotion under Rule 13.18 of the Punjab Police Rules,. 1934, was exhaustively dealt with. In the case of Raja Muhammad Riaz Kiyani, D.S.P. reported as 2000 PLC (C:S.) 697, I had myself examined the same question, namely, if a police officer blow the rank of D.S.P. was to be dealt with under the Police Rules applicable to him and if he would be entitled under Rule 13.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 from the date of his appointment/promotion.

5. The record of the appellant showed and showed very clearly that his performance throughout has been commendable. He is holder of the highest award, namely, Quaid‑i‑Azam Police Medal. He was many a time recommended for out of turn promotion which was permissible under section 8‑A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and in the light of the rule laid down in Chief Secretary v. Raja Mumtaz Ahmed, S.P. (1996' SCMR 1945) on the basis of outstanding meritorious service record. Instances of his outstanding performance can be seen in Annexure C/1 (pages . 18 to 22 of the appeal file). The Policy Instructions, dated 8‑6‑1973, 14‑11‑1974, 1996 and 4‑5‑1998 (Annexures N, Nos. l, N2‑3 and N‑4) issued by the Inspector‑General of the Police also encourage the police officers with outstanding record by giving them ante‑dated/out‑of‑turn promotions. The appellant could not have been discriminated against in any manner whatsoever. In the present appeal, the appellant is not asking for out of turn promotion on account of acts of gallantry or outstanding performance, from the masters of the day. Instead, what he is asking for is that he was entitled to be confirmed as A.S.‑I., as Sub‑Inspector and Inspector from the date of his appointment/promotion at all the stages with further consequential service benefits including promotion as D.S.P. and so on. I find that there were two prerequisites to successfully press into service rule 13.18 of the Police Rules, 1934. Those were(i) existence of a vacancy and (ii) satisfactory service record. It has not been disputed by the I‑G. Police in his comments that the above two conditions were fulfilled in the case of the appellants. Rather, as noted earlier, the appellant had throughout commendable service career. That being so, his claim for confirmation as Sub Inspector from 18‑12‑1975 when he was promoted as such, and for confirmation as Inspector from 22‑7‑1980 when he was so promoted, with further consequential relief including pro forma promotion as D.S.P and so on, would be independently justified under rule 13.18 of the Punjab Police Rules. It was observed in Inspector‑General of Police v. Qayyum Nawaz Khan (1999 SCMR 1594) that there was no rule laying down that date of confirmation would be a date different from the date of appointment.

6. For all the above reasons, I accept the appeal and direct the respondent‑Department to confirm the appellant as Sub‑Inspector w.e.f. 18‑12‑1975 and as Inspector w.e.f. 22‑7‑1980. Further, the date of E promotion of the appellant as D.S.P. (18‑12‑1989) shall be revised giving him pro forma promotion on the basis of his confirmation as Inspector w.e.f. 22‑7‑1980. On improvement of his seniority as D.S.P. accordingly, he would then be entitled to further promotion as S.P. on seniority‑cum‑fitness basis. Resultantly, the impugned orders, dated 24‑3‑1998 and 27‑3‑1999, shall stand set aside. The parties shall bear their own costs. H.B.T./18/P.(Sr.Trib.) Appeal accepted.