1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMAMD ISMAIL (MEMBER). ‑‑‑This appeal has been filed under section 4.of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, by Muhammad Ramzan, who is an employee of Railway Police, challenging the verbal order of his reversion from the post of A. S. I. to the post of Head Constable by the A. I.‑G.

2. The appellant's case, in brief, is that he joined Railway Police, Karachi Division, as constable on 16‑8‑1984. He got special training in traffic and also received a number of commendation certificates and Cash Awards. Later on, he was promoted by the Superintendent of Police, Railway, Karachi, to the rank of A.S.I. on 15‑6‑1991 and posted as Additional S.H.O. According to the appellant, he was also approved in the Intermediate School Course and thereafter he was posted as A.S.I. by order dated 23‑6‑1992 by the Superintendent of Police, Karachi. Subsequently he was dismissed from service but was reinstated into service as A.S.I. He‑was serving as such when he was reverted to the rank of Head Constable by the A.I.‑G. The appellant had filed a representation for his retention to the post of A.S.I. but the same was rejected and the decision was communicated to him vide letter dated 27‑12‑1994. By way of the present appeal he seeks his restoration to the rank of A.S.I.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has throughout his service career been performing his duties successfully in all the fields and in a number of cases which were detected and booked by him, challans were submitted to Court and the accused persons were convicted. It was maintained that in spite of his meritorious service he was reverted to the post of Head Constable by the A.I.‑G. with mala fide intention on verbal orders but the Superintendent of Railway Police, Karachi, had directed him to continue work against the post of A.S.I. and not to comply with the verbal order of the A.I.‑G. It was also, stated that besides challenging this illegal and verbal order of his reversion departmentally, the appellant had filed a writ petition before the Sindh High Court but, during the pendency of the said petition, he was persuaded and given assurance that he would be restored to the rank of A.S.I., provided he withdrew his petition from the said Court. The petition was accordingly withdrawn but despite that no order of his restoration to the rank of A.S. I. has been passed as yet, although he is continuously serving against that post. He, therefore, prays for his restoration to the rank of A.S.I.

4. The respondent‑Department's main submission is that the appellant was never promoted regularly to the post of A.S.I. and as such he has no claim whatsoever to hold that post. It was also submitted that none of his juniors had been promoted as A.S.I. in preference to him and as such the appellant's contention that his juniors had been promoted and he was ignored is false and baseless. However, our attention was drawn to the letter dated 15‑6‑1991 which reads as under:‑‑ HC/Muhammad Ramzan is being promoted as A.S.I. on ad hoc basis keeping in view his good performance and spotless length‑of service. However; he will not claim for any seniority till his regular promotion. "

5. We have heard the parties and perused the record of the case. Besides the order dated 15‑6‑1991, whereby the appellant was appointed as A.S.I. on ad hoc basis, we find that the appellant was also put to the post of A.S.I. order dated 23‑6‑1992, wherein it was stated that "A.S.I. Muhammad Ramzan will draw his pay at the rate of Rs.1.533 (BPS‑11) with effect from 7‑6‑1992 and will not confer his right for regular promotion till he is recommended/ cleared by the proper DPC. " Both the orders clearly show that the appellant's appointment/promotion as A.S.I. had never been made regularly and was made purely on ad hoc officiating basis but‑without any claim for regular absorption. Obviously such an appointment roes not confer any right on the appellant to hold the post of A.S.I. till he was regularly promoted which was n0er done. His reversion from ad hoc or officiating appointment to his regular post of Head Constable was, therefore, quite in order and cannot be challenged on any ground.

6. The other submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that no notice was served upon the appellant before reverting him to the post of Head Constable, is also of no avail to him as it is considered view of the superior Courts that "no notice is necessary when a civil servant is reverted to his lower post or grade if he was appointed to a higher post or grade on ad hoc or temporary or in an officiation capacity. In other words, ad hoc, temporary or officiating appointment, confers no right on an incumbent to the receipt of notice prior to being reverted to his former post. If any authority is needed we would quote 1976 SCMR 255 wherein it was inter alia observed that a civil servant, appointed to a higher post or grade on ad hoc or on temporary or on officiating basis, is liable to be reverted to his lower post or grade without notice.

7. The appellant also alleged mala fides against the A.I.‑G. in the memo. of appeal but at the time of hearing he could not establish the same. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case reported as 1985 SCMR 1649 (Nabi Ahmed v. Ministry of Defence) has laid down that the plea of mala fides has to be specifically alleged and proved conclusively. Since the appellant has failed to establish mala fides against the A.I.‑G., therefore, his objection is repelled.

8. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed with no order as to costs. We may, however, add that if the appellant falls in the range of promotion and otherwise is qualified, the department may consider him for promotion afresh as he had been serving as A.S.I. time and again.

9. Parties to be informed accordingly. H.B.T./67/Sr. F Appeal dismissed.