Find a Lawyer

Case No. 471/1910 of 1982, decided on 28th December, 1983.

‑‑ R. 8‑Seniority ‑‑ Pro forma promotion‑Civil servant involved in a criminal case which became protracted due to certain reasons but ultimately not found party to such inquiry and exonerated from charges‑Civil servant, held, cannot be denied his due rights of seniority and promotion‑Case remanded to competent authority for decision in accordance with Government instructions on subject of pro forma promotion.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

Riaz Ahmad Khan, Inspector, Special Branch, Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhupura, D. I.‑G.., Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala, I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore and Messrs Muhammad Ayub and 38 others as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal be has prayed that the impugned seniority list, dated 6th May,‑1962 and final order, dated 2nd August, 1982 and 18th August, 1982, in so far as it denies proper place of seniority to the appel lant be set aside and respondent No. 3 be directed to confirm the appellant as A. S.‑I. from 3rd May, 1970 and to confirm as Sub‑Inspector w. e. f. 1st July, 1911 and as Inspector from 7th September, 1977 viz. the date from which his juniors have been so confirmed and the appellant be declared senior to the contesting respondents in the ranks of A. S.‑I, S.‑I. as well as Inspector. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 ire also directed to consider the appellant for such pro forma promotions to which appellant becomes due on the basis of his improved seniority.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service a9 Foot Constable on 3rd October, 1950 and earned his grade to grade pro motions. The appellant was placed on List D'. He was in the first instance promoted as officiating A. S: I. w. e. f. 6th September, 1965 and was reverted on 6th March, 1966, for want of a regular vacancy. He was again promoted as A. S.‑I. on regular basis w. e. f. 1st July, 1966. The appellant's confirmation as A. S.‑I. and promotion to List 'E' and then as officiating Sub‑Inspector was held up on a frivolous plea that a criminal case was pending between the two parties in a Court of Law in respect of a case registered in the Police Station Sangla Hill, where the appellant was then so posted. In the meanwhile the appellant juniors viz. Contest ing respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were confirmed as A. S.‑I. The appellant submitted his representation through S. P.. Sheikhupura, vide No. 7812, dated 25th March, 1972, for his confirmation and seniority in the rank of A. S.‑I., which remained undecided. , The appellant again represented for his seniority to the D. I.‑G. Police through S. P., Sheikhupura which was forwarded by letter No. 4093, dated 8th February, 1973, and an interim reply was received in which be was told that the case of seniority will be decided after the decision of the aforesaid criminal case pending in the Court. The appellant was exonerated in the Departmental inquiry and the appellant's name was to be admitted to List 'E', w. e. f. 16th May, 1970, 17th May, 1970 and 17th May, 1970 instead of 4th September, 1971, when his juniors were so admitted. In this manner, even after exonera tion the appellant's seniority was not properly fixed although he was admitted to List E' w. e. f. 4th September, 1971 and was promoted as Officiating Sub‑Inspector w. e. f. 27th April, 1971, yet these two steps did not restore the appellant's seniority as the appellant basically had been rendered junior as A. S.‑I. as he was confirmed as A. S.‑I. from 21st July, 1970, whereas his juniors had been confirmed from 3rd May, 1970. As the basic relief has not been granted to the appellant despite his exoneration, he has chosen to file this appeal before this Tribunal.

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 entire record of this case carefully including the comments so submitted by the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid main stress on the point that if a civil servant is not promoted due to certain enquiries pend ing against him and later on he is exonerated from the same, according to the instructions as laid down for the pro forma promotion by the Government, he would be entitled to said pro forma promotion and seniority from the date his juniors were so promoted. For this purpose he has placed reliance on a number of rulings of this Tribunal as well as settled principle of law on this issue

6. On the other band learned District Attorney has adopted the comments submitted by the Inspector‑General of Police through Mr. Rafi Ahmad Pervaiz, A. I.‑G. Establishment and has submitted that as the pro forma promotion was not vested as a legal right which was always within the discretion of the competent authority either to award the same or not. However, he has not denied that the appellant's confirmation was with held all along due to an inquiry pending in a case to which although be was not a party yet was posted at the said Police Station and later on was so exonerated. Besides this it has been submitted that respondent No. 4 Muhammad Ayub was given accelerated promotion on the basis of his confirmation as A. S.‑I. w. e. f. 3rd May, 1970 which was earlier in date than the appellant.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and find that the delayed confirmation of the appellant has resulted in his promotion due to an inquiry pending in a case registered at P. S Sangla Hill where the appellant was so posted as Assistant Sub- Inspector but at the same time was not party to the same. It is also an established fact on the record that this inquiry became protracted due to certain reasons and ultimately he was exonerated from the same. This being the situation and the same has not been denied by the respondents, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the appellant should have been given his due which remained denied to him all along due to no fault of the appellant and ultimately it was proved that he was innocent in the said matter. This is a settled principle of law for the grant of pro forma promotion as well as restoration of seniority vis‑a‑vis the instruc tions laid down by the Government in such matters.

8. In view of the above we proceed to accept the appeal set aside the impugned orders and remand the case to the competent authority to re consider the case of the appellant vis‑a‑vis his claim of seniority as well as that of pro forma promotion in the light of the instructions laid down by the Government and particularly in the face of the fact that the appellant was denied of these two rights due to an inquiry which ultimately resulted in his favour. There will be no order as to costs.

M. Y. M. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.