1954 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Bashir Ahmad has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded Superintendent of Police, Vehari, D. I.‑G. Police, Multan Range, Multan, and I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 13th July, 1981 be set aside and the order dated 10th January, 1982 be modified in so far as the appellant's re‑instatement as Head Constable. He has also prayed that subsequent orders of respondent No. 2 withholding the appellant's revision petition may kindly be set' aside and the appellant be re‑instated as Head Constable from 2nd July, 1981.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Bashir Ahmad, ex. Head Constable No. 555, while posted at P. S. City Burewala was alleged to have misbehaved and manhandled Vice‑Chairman, Union Council, Burewala. He was served with a show‑cause notice that on 17th June, 198, be misbehaved and manhandled Vice‑Chairman Union Council, Burewala who had come to Police Station for enquiring about one Muhammad Anwar Watch‑maker and seeking justice. Thereafter, tire appellant got a false report entered in daily diary dated 17th June, 1981 at Serial No. 8 by twisting the facts in his favour to save his skin from depart mental action. A reply to this show‑cause notice was submitted by the appellant (Annexure `B') and considered by S. P. Vehari. He was also heard in person. The appellant was found guilty of misconduct and was dismissed from service w. e. f. 2nd July, 1981 vide Superintendent of Police, Vehari's order, dated 13th July, 1981. The appellant made an appeal to the D. I.‑G. Multan Range, Multan who took a lenient view and re‑instated the appellant as Constable vide his order, dated 10th January, 1982. The period spent out of employment was treated as leave of the kind due. The appellant made a petition to the I.‑G. of Police, Punjab, which was dis posed of by D. I.‑G. Multan Range, Multan vide his letter dated 26th July, 1982. The said order was conveyed to the appellant by respondent No. 1 and 17th August, 1982. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the charge of his misbehavour and manhandling the Councillor was not proved against him, as is clear from the appellate order dated 10th January, 1982 of respondent No.

2. The respondent No. 2, was satisfied with the appellant's explanation and he has re‑instated the appellant as Constable. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is some confusion or mistake in reinstating the appellant as Constable instead of Head Constable ; the original post held by him when the appellant was proceeded against and dismissed by Superintendent of Police, Vehari on 2nd July, 1981 by his impugned order, dated 13th July, 1981. He has relied upon the judgment of this Tribunal in case of Saleem Hussain Gardezi v. Government of the Punjab and 4 others (1). In that case Mr. Saieem was recruited as Inspector but subsequently his services were terminated. On his appeal he was re‑instated as A. S.‑I. He challenged his reinstatement as A. S. I. and Home Depart ment sought an advice from the Regulation Wing of the S G A & I Department on the specific issue as to whether a civil servant can be reinstated in a rank lower than that held by him immediately before termination of his services. SGA & I Department advised that re‑instatement can be made only on the post from which services of the person were terminated. This Tribunal agreeing with the advice of the S G A & I Department has accepted the appeal of Mr. Saleem Hussain Gardezi in restoration to the same rank and not to a lower rank. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this case is on all fours with the above reported judgment. The order of the re‑instatement of the appellant as constable instead of Head Constable be set aside and he directed to be re‑instated on his original post. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that be entered in the service of District Police as Head Constable and be has never been a Constable and as such there was no question of his reinstate ment to a post which he never held.

5. Rebutting the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned District Attorney has relied upon the parawise com ments submitted by the respondent No.

1. He has also submitted that the competent authority i. e. D. I.‑G. of Police Multan Range, Multan can reinstate the appellant to a lower grade i.e. Constable instead of Head Constable as per Schedule Power of Punishment Table, authority to award ' punishment, attached to the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975. Thus, the impugned order dated 10th January, 1982 of respondent No. 2, is a valid and lawful order.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties, have carefully perused the record of this case and also above‑referred judgment of this Tribunal. In a similar case, this Tribunal has agreed with the advice of the S G A & I Department which is re-produced below, from page 595, of the reported judgment, Saleem Hussain Gardezi v. A Government of the Punjab and 4 others (1981 8 L C (C. S.) 592) :‑ "Re‑instatement can be made only on the post from which services of the person were terminated. The orders of the Review Board, to re-instate the official in a lower post would not be valid under civil law. Agreeing with the above advice, it was held by this Tribunal that on reinstatement, a person was to be restored to the same rank and not to x lower rank.

7. Keeping the above analysis in view and an earlier judgment given by this Tribunal, the appeal of the appellant is accepted. The impugned order No. 788‑89/BE, dated 10th January, 1982 of Deputy Inspector -General of Police, Multan Range, Multan is modified to the extent that the reinstatement of the appellant shell be as "Head Constable" and not "Constable". There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. M. Appeal accepted.