1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).‑Turej Ahmed has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein be has impleaded D. I.‑G. Police, Multan Range Multan, and I. G. Police, Punjab, Lahore and contesting respondents at serial 3 to 27 as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 24th December, 1980 and the final order, dated 13th March, 1982/28th March, 1982 be set aside and respondent be directed to confirm the appellant from 1st June, 1973 i.e. the due date.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was enlisted as T/A.S.I. in the Police Department on 1st September, 1966. He was dismissed from service w. e. f. 27th June, 1969 on account of his conviction under M. L. R. No. 27 by Summary Military Court, Sahiwal. He submitted a mercy peti tion to the Governor, Punjab which was accepted and the appellant was re‑instated under the orders of I.‑G. Punjab, Lahore on 16th March, 1973. He was promoted as officiating S.‑I. on 10th August, 1973. D. I.‑G. Multan vide his order, dated 14th March, 1976 confirmed the appellant in the rank of A. S.‑I. w. e. f. 1st March, 1968 and also incorporated his name in the list `E' w. e. f. 28th May, 1971. He was placed under suspension w. e. f. 12th July, 1976 due to misconduct and was reinstated w. e. f. 30th July, 1976. He was again placed under suspension on 13th July, 1977 for misconduct and re‑instated w. e. f. 22nd October, 1977. He was selected for upper class school course commencing from 16th September, 1976 to 27th March, 1977 and was declared as successful. During the years 1974 and 1975 he earned adverse remarks. His two years approved service was forfeited on 2nd November, 1977 for misconduct negligence and dereliction of duty while posted as S. H. O. P. S. Dera Rahim. How ever, his this punishment was, converted into that of censure by D. I.‑G. Multan Range, Multan. As the appellant qualified the upper class school course successfully in the term ending March, 1977, hence his name was brought on probation w. e. f. 1st June, 1977 and was confirmed as Sub -Inspector from the same date vide D. I.‑G. Multan order, dated 24th December, 1980. The appellant made an appeal to I.‑G. Police Punjab, Lahore for confirming him as S.‑I. w. e. f. 1st June, 1973 and also allow him seniority from this date. The same was considered by the Inspector -General of Police Punjab and rejected vide order, dated 13th March, 1983. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was admitted to list 'E' from 28th May, 1971 and it was ordered by D. I.‑G. Police Multan Range, Multan in the same order, dated 14th March, 1976 that he should be selected for upper class school course on the basis of his seniority on list `E'. It is, therefore, obvious from the order, dated 14th March, 1976 that object of this order as well as object of appellant's being deputed to upper class school course was to maintain his seniority at list `E'. Although the appellant passed said course in time yet his seniority was denied wrongfully. That while passing the impugned order, dated 24th December, 1980 the respondent No. 1 has applied irrelevant con sideration and irrelevant rules. Actually the relevant rule for the con firmation of A. S.‑I. is rule 13.10(2) of Police Rules and not the rule so quoted by the respondent No. 1 in his above‑noted impugned order. Thus, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant has been denied his right of confirmation from 1st June, 1973 which is admissible to him under the Rules. It was prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant that wrongful done be set right and the appellant be directed to be confirmed from 1st June, 1973.

5. Controverting the above arguments, of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned District Attorney has relied upon the para-wise com ments submitted‑by the respondents and also the orders, dated 14th March, 1976 and 24th December, 1980 of D. I.‑G. Multan Range, Multan. It has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that it was a clear cut con dition in the order, dated 14th March, 1976 that the confirmation of the appellant in the rank of S. I. would be considered when he would pass the upper school course. As soon as the appellant, passed this course in the year 1977, he was confirmed from due date as S.‑I. i.e. w. e. f. 1st June, 1977. It was also submitted by the learned District Attorney that there is no truth in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that Police Rule 13.1(i) was not applicable in this case, as mentioned by D. I.‑G. Multan Range, Multan in his impugned order, dated 24th December, 1980. This Rule is very much applicable in this case and the respondent has correctly relied upon this Rule.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record very carefully. We have perused the order, dated 14th March, 1976 passed by D. I.‑G. Police Multan Range Multan, wherein the clear cut condition was imposed regarding confirmation of the appellant in the rank of Sub‑Inspector which reads as follow "As regards his confirmation in the rank of Sub‑Inspector he will be considered for it after he has passed the upper school course for which he be selected on the basis of his seniority on list `E'. We have also gone through the impugned order, dated 24th December, 1980 para. 3 of which reads as follow :‑ "As regards his confirmation in the rank of S.‑I. the then D. I.‑G. observed in the same order that the petitioner would be considered for it after he had passed the upper school course for which he would be selected on the basis of his seniority on list 'E'. However, the representationist did not challenge the condition laid down in the said order by the D. I.‑G. for consideration of his case for confirma tion in the rank of S. I. by way of any representation/petition to the I.‑G. P. Punjab, Lahore. Thus, it is clear that the appellant accepted the above condition, and did not agitate against it and, thus he was bound to abide by the same. This impugned order also made it clear that as soon as the appellant passed the upper school course in the term ending March, 1977, in accordance with above condition be was confirmed in the rank of S.‑I. from 1st June, 1977. C Thus, the appellant was confirmed correctly as Sub‑Inspector from the due date i.e. 1st June, 1977. We are, therefore, satisfied that no injustice has been done with the appellant ‑ and he has been confirmed as Sub‑Inspector from the due date.

7. Keeping the above analysis in view, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such. There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed,