1987 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). ‑‑Ghazanfar Ali Shah, Inspector Police No. R/156, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and Muhammad Masud R/146 Inspector Police/SHO, Police Station Old Anarkali, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders dated 27‑2‑1984 be set aside and he be deemed to be admitted to list 'F' w.e.f. 30‑12‑1975 the date from which his junior Muhammad Masud, Contesting Respondent No.2 was admitted to list 'F'. It has been prayed by him that he be deemed to have been promoted as Inspector w.e.f 24‑6‑1976, the date from which the contesting respondent No.2 was so promoted on the basis of his admission to List 'F'.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the Police Department as a probationer A.S.I. on 1‑9‑1966 and on the basis of his good service record he was brought on list 'E' w.e.f. 26‑7‑1971 and was also confirmed as A.S.[. from the same date. He was promoted as Sub‑Inspector w.e.f. 2‑8‑1971 and confirmed as such w.e.f. 1‑6‑1973. The respondent No.2 was also recruited as probationer A.S.I. w.e.f. 1‑9‑1966 in the same batch in which the appellant was recruited. The date of his confirmation as A.S.I. (List E) is also the same as that of the appellant. The appellant appears at Serial No.49 in the list 'E' whereas the contesting respondent No.2 is shown at Serial No.

57. The appellant claims that he was senior to the contesting respondent No.2, however, respondent No.2, Muhammad Masud was admitted to list 'F' w.e.f. 30‑12‑1975 whereas the appellant was admitted to list 'F' w.e.f. 11‑11‑1976. The appellant has contended that due to earlier admission of respondent No.2, in list 'F' the respondent No.2, has become senior to the appellant although the appellant has throughout been senior to him and his record of service has also been satisfactory. The respondent No.2, was admitted to list 'F' w.e.f. 30‑12‑1975 and promoted as Inspector w.e.f. 24‑6‑1976, while the appellant was admitted to list 'F' w.e.f. 11‑11‑1976 and promoted as Inspector on 16‑2‑1977, though the appellant was senior to respondent No.2. The appellant filed a representation dated 23‑11‑1982 against the seniority list of Officiating Inspectors of Police circulated by the respondent No.1, dated 6‑5‑1982 (Annexure 'B'). The appellant was given personal hearing by the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore on 22‑2‑1984, and his representation was rejected vide Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore's order dated 27‑2‑1984. Hence, this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e. Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Masood, the representative of the respondents.

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the appellant had a good service record and was senior to the respondent No.2, yet, he was not considered at all alongwith the respondent No.2, by the Departmental Authorities, who was admitted to list 'F' w.e.f 30‑12‑1975, i.e. earlier to the appellant and was also promoted as Inspector w.e.f. 24‑6‑1976 that too earlier to the appellant. The appellant's counsel has submitted that the appellant has been thus ignored for admission to list 'F' from the same date from which his junior (respondent No.2) was so admitted by the Departmental Authorities and the appellant has suffered considerably. The appellant's counsel has, further relied on the judgment of this Tribunal given on 29‑11‑1983, in Case No. 428/1261 of 1981, Arshad Hussain Shah v. Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and Muhammad Masood respondent No.2. He has submitted that this case of the appellant is at par with the case of that appellant, Arshad Hussain Shah vis‑a‑vis contesting respondent No.2 and on the basis of above judgment, the appellant is entitled to be admitted to list 'F' from 30‑12‑1975 from the date from which his junior, i.e. respondent No.2, was so admitted as respondent No.2 was also the respondent in that case as well.

6. On the other hand the representative of the respondents has relied upon the parawise comments and the note on factual position filed by the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and has submitted that the case of the appellant is distinguishable from the case of Arshad Hussain Shah in whose favour the abovesaid judgment dated 29‑11‑1983 was given. He has invited our attention to comparative chart of A.C.Rs. of respondent No.2 and the appellant placed as Annexure 'B' with the parawise comments filed by the respondents and has submitted that respondent No.2 has better service record than the appellant. It has been further pointed out by him that the appellant was duly considered alongwith respondent No.2 in the year 1975 for admission to list 'F', but the appellant was ignored due to his un‑satisfactory record of service. Hence, no exception can be taken against the impugned orders which are valid and lawful orders.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case. The stand of the respondents is that the service record of the appellant is not as good as that of contesting respondent No.2. The promotion is made on seniority‑cum‑fitness. The appellant' was not considered suitable for admission to list 'F' w.e.f. 30‑12‑1975. We have perused the comparative chart of Annual Confidential Reports of the appellant and the respondent No.2, as supplied by the respondents (Annexure 'B' alongwith their parawise comments), and find that the appellant has 2 A‑I reports, 4‑A reports and 11‑B reports, while the respondent No.2 has 8‑A reports and 8‑B reports. The above service record of the appellant cannot be termed as unsatisfactory vis‑a‑vis of respondent No.2. It seems that the respondents are led by the large No. of 'B' reports in case of appellant vis‑a‑vis respondent No.2, but 'B' reports are not adverse reports and are considered as satisfactory reports. We find that proper mind had not been applied by the authority, i.e. the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore when the service record of the appellant was considered for admission to List 'F' vis‑a‑vis the respondent No.2, and there is every justification for reconsideration of the case of the appellant.

8. The upshot of the above analysis of the matter is that Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore is directed to reconsider the case of the appellant for admission to list 'F' w.e.f. 30‑12‑1975 and promotion as Inspector w.e.f. 24‑6‑1976, the dates from which respondent No.2, junior to him, was so admitted to list 'F'/promoted as Inspector. A.E./117/Pb.S Appeal allowed.