1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th August, 1989. Abdul Aziz (Ariz Ahmed) Constable No. 662 has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the impugned orders dated 3‑8‑1987 and 10‑11‑1987 passed by the respondents. The Appellant has impleaded the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad; Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad and Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad as respondents. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders passed by respondents be set aside and his name in List C‑II be restored

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant's name appeared in List C‑11 in the year, 1983, for further promotion as Head Constable. Subsequently the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice dated 14‑7‑1987, to the effect that since the appellant had failed to arrest two P.Os he should show cause as to why his name should not be removed from List C‑I1, as the appellant had proved to be inefficient. The appellant submitted his explanation which was considered unsatisfactory and his name was removed from List C‑11 vide order dated 2‑8‑1987. The appellant preferred a representation before Respondent No: 3, which was rejected on 10‑11‑1987. Hence this appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and perused the record of this case with care with the assistance of the representative of the department.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the name of the appellant was removed from List C‑1I in contravention of Police Rules. He vehemently contended that the name of the appellant could only be removed from List C‑II if he was inflicted with a major punishment. Conversely the learned District Attorney has rebutted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the impugned orders passed by the respondents being well‑reasoned and justified may be maintained.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and find that the appellant throughout performed his duties efficiently and diligently; he earned 37 commendation certificates in recognition of his good service; his record is unblemished; he was; placed on Promotion List C‑II as an exempted from passing the Lower School Course examination; the nature of the duty of the appellant v1as such that it was not possible for him to arrest any of the proclaimed Offenders. Under Police Rule 13.8 (A) for removal of name from List A, B and C, infliction of major penalty is a must but in the case of the appellant, the same is not attracted; as he has never been visited with major punishment. Viewed in this context the deletion of the name of the appellant from List C‑II was contrary to law.

6. In the light of the above discussion I find no justification to uphold the orders passed by the respondents and proceed to set aside the same. The appeal is allowed and the name of the appellant is restored in List C‑II. There is no order as to costs. M.H.Y./290/Sr.P Appeal allowed.