1986 PLP (C (PLC)

Sub‑Inspector w.e.f 20‑9‑1981 and the contesting respondent was shown junior to the appellant by the D.I.‑G., Lahore. Again the appellant and the contesting respondents Mr Halim Sabir were admitted to List 'F' w.e.f 21‑9‑1981, in the same order of seniority and appellant was shown senior to Mr. Halim Sabir in this order as well. On 3‑10‑1981, the appellant as well as contesting respondents were promoted as Inspector. However quite abruptly on 12‑6‑1982, an order was issued in favour of contesting respondent Mr. Halim Sabir, wherein the date of his promotion to List 'F' was ante‑dated from 21‑9‑1981 to 15‑5‑1972, i.e. 9 years back on the ground that he had been given Special Grade as Sub‑Inspector w.e.f 1‑1‑1972. This was done by notification dated 23‑5‑1982 Aggrieved against this discrimination, the appellant submitted further representation, dated 13‑9‑1982. to respondent No.l, in which he highlighted all the points which had already been raised by him in his earlier pending representations. But the respondent No. 1 summarily rejected the said representation vide his order, dated 5‑9‑1983, without going into the merits of his claim. That order was officially conveyed to the appellant on 19‑10‑1983. Hence appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. ~,s~

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has got highly meritorious record of service and has claimed that he has never earned even a minor punishment throughout his 26 year career. He has produced before this Tribunal 529 commendation certificates, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant are unprecedented and lead to an irresistable conclusion that the appellant was an officer of high integrity , marvellous performance and dedicated to his duties. He has claimed that his case has not been decided on merits.

6. It has been further submitted that in view of the service record of the appellant, there was no justification, on the part of the respondent No.l to discriminate when his junior Mr. Halim Sabir, who did not even possess equal record of service with the appellant, was bestowed Special Grade Sub‑Inspector w.e.f. 1‑1‑1972 and his promotion to List 'F' was ante‑dated from 21‑9‑1981 to 15‑5‑1972. It has been vehemently argued that according to the Policy of Government contained in Services, General Administration Department's Policy Letter dated 16‑10‑1973 Annexure 'Q' as well as I.‑G. Police Punjab own's instruction, dated 10‑1‑1973, the appellant was entitled to pro forma promotion to Special Grade Sub‑Inspector from 1‑1‑1972 and promotion to List 'F' from 15‑5‑1972, the date from which he was originally due for such promotions. It has been further urged that the appellant was entitled to be considered for promotion to List 'G' and as D.S._P. from the date from which his junior Halim Sabir was so promoted as D . S . P .

7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the parawise comments filed by Mr. Muhammad Akram, A.I.‑G/Estt. on behalf of the Inspector‑General of Police, and has submitted that the promotion and confirmation are governed by P. R. 13.1 read with 13.14. According to the learned District Attorney under the provision of these Rules the main factor for consideration for grant of promotion in Police Department is selection tampered by seniority. Efficiency and honesty shall be the main factors governing selection. It has been submitted that the record of the appellant on the whole did not justify his inclusion in List 'F' from prior date. It has been further conceded in para. 9 of the parawise comments that the appellant was one step senior to Mr. Halim Sabir in the seniority List 'F' as stood on 25‑2‑1982, but it was pointed out that promotion of Mr. Halim Sabir to List 'F' was subsequently ante‑dated from 21‑9‑1981 to 15‑5‑1972, on account of grant of Special Grade in the rank of Sub‑Inspector w.e.f. 1‑1‑1972, vide orders contained in I.‑G.p.'s Office Endorsement No. 12832‑33/II, dated 12‑6‑1982.

8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and would like to assess the intrinsic strength of learned District Attorney's argument that the appellant's "record of service did not justify his inclusion in List 'F' from prior date". We have taken pains to find any substance in this claim so put‑forth by the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents but on the contrary we find that the appellant's record of service is not only positively unblemished but he has earned 529 commendation certificates which fact further substantiates his claim that his services with the Police Department positively entitled him for appreciation and he was a fit person to be rewarded for his best performance at least by not denying him his due. Learned District Attorney has failed to satisfy us that there was substance in the claim of respondent No.l as given in para. 2 of the note of factual position wherein it has been contended that on the whole the record of the appellant did justify his inclusion on the list of priority. In view of above we have no hesitation to conclude that the appellant possesses better record of service than the contesting respondent No.2 and others who have been proceeded ex parte, before this Tribunal, and there is no merit in the finding of respondent No.l which we are convinced, has been recorded without looking at the appellant's record of service.

9. We have carefully attended to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding implied refusal of respondent No.l in giving to the appellant his due date of grant of Special Grade Sub‑Inspector from 1‑1‑1972 and his admission to List 'F' dated 15‑5‑1975, even after the appellant was honourably acquitted in the criminal case by the Court of competent jurisdiction. We are of the considered opinion that when the appellant had been honourably acquitted from criminal charge in the said criminal case, there was no jurisdiction for the respondent No.l, to deprive him from these two benefits which he otherwise, would have achieved, had he not been involved in the aforesaid criminal case pending against him. Actually Government has framed the Policy as contained in its above referred letter dated 16‑10‑1973, to safeguard the rights of civil servants faced with such a situation. Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab's own instructions, dated 10‑1‑1973, mentioned above are also to this effect. In this respect, we will refer to our earlier decision in case of Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad, Inspector, v. I.‑G. Police, reported as 1981 P L C (C . S .)

875. In that case Shah Mahmood, who was basically junior to Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad as Sub‑Inspector, was unilaterally assigned earlier date of promotion to List 'F'. After exhausting his departmental remedies Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad filed appeal before this Tribunal, which was accepted and it was held that Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad, would be deemed to be admitted to List 'F' from the date his next junior was so promoted /admitted to list 'F', as it was a case of sheer discrimination, on the part of respondents. The Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, went in appeal against the said judgment but their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan vide their judgment reported as 1983 S C M ft 34, upheld the decision of this Tribunal and observed that such like discrimination cannot be permitted and the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that he would be deemed to have been admitted to List 'F', with retrospective effect, was considered valid as well as justified. The case of Mr. Abdul Qadir Hayee, D.I.‑G. Police reported as 1981 S C M R 501 is also quite parallel. In that case Mr. Abdul Qadir Hayee while he was Superintendent of Police, was suspended and removed from Police Group. Subsequently he was re‑instated and brought back to Police Group with his old seniority. However, during the period he was under suspension and kept out of Police Group, a number of Superintendent of Police, who were junior to him, had been promoted as D.I.‑Gs. He claimed that he should also be promoted as D.I.‑G. Police from the date of promotion of his junior. His request was not acceded to. He went in appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which was pleased to accept his appeal and directed that he would be considered to have been promoted as D.I.‑G. Police from the date of promotion to his junior. The decision of the learned Tribunal was challenged before the Supreme Court of Pakistan and their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, upheld the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The facts of the present case are identical inasmuch as in that case also the basic seniority of Mr. Abdul Qadir Hayee, was restored but he was denied the benefit of restoration of seniority in the shape of promotion to next higher rank. In the case of present appellant also, although his basic seniority as Sub‑Inspector had been restored yet the material benefit of restoration of seniority has been denied to him in the form of promotion, which he would have achieved had he not been falsely involved in the aforesaid criminal case.

10. The case of Ashfaq Ahmad so decided by this Tribunal as upheld by the Supreme Court is fully applicable to the facts of the case of the appellant so before us. We fail to understand why appellant has been denied a treatment which has been meted out to his junior Mr. Halim Sabir, when according to the admission of respondent himself in Para. 9 of the parawise comments that the appellant was senior to this contesting respondent. If the respondent could have been satisfied us through learned District Attorney or otherwise through its own comments, that the appellant's record of service was blemished or he was otherwise unfit for such like grant of Special Grade and promotion to List F due to certain adverse happening in his service career, then of course we would find some justification for this sort of treatment so meted out to the appellant. But in the absence of such elements we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the appellant has been discriminated without any justification in spite of the fact that __ he was positively senior to the contesting respondent Mr. Halim Sabir as well C as has excellent record of service supported with 529‑commendation certificates during his long 26 years service. In this situation we have no alternative but to follow our earlier judgment and hold that the appellant would be deemed to be promoted to Special Grade Sub‑Inspector w.e.f. 1‑1‑1972 and to List 'F' w.e.f. 15‑5‑1972 and also as Inspector from the date his next junior Mr. Halim Sabir has been so promoted as However, with regard to his further promotion to List C and as D . S . P. , we can only recommend that as a necessary corollary to this decision appellant may be considered by the Government to these ranks from the date his junior Mr. Halim Sabir was so promoted.

11. In view of our findings as given above, we proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 12‑6‑1982, and final order dated 5‑9‑1983/19‑10‑1983, and hold that the appellant is deemed to be promoted to Special Grade Sub‑Inspector w.e.f. 1‑1‑1972 and to Inspector/List 'F' w.e.f. 15‑5‑1972, i.e. the date from which his next junior Mr. Haleem Sabir has been promoted to these ranks, seniority list of Inspectors be corrected accordingly. At the same time we direct the respondent No.l to consider the appellant for promotions to List 'G' and as D.S.P. from the same date his junior Mr. Halim Sabir was so promoted. There will be no order as to costs. A. A. Appeal accepted.