Find a Lawyer

Case No. 384/1338 of 1981, decided on 18th May, 1982.

‑‑ R. 13.8‑A & 16.33‑Removal from List B‑I‑‑Minor punishment or poor performance‑No ground for removal from List B‑I‑Service Tribunal accepting appeal against order of removal on account of poor performance and minor punishment and directing restoration of appellant's name to List B‑I‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Appellant in person.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema District Attorney for Respondents.

.‑ Ijaz Ahmad Constable has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded D. I.‑G. of Police, Sargodha and S. P., Jhang as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order of punishing the appellant by removing his name from list B‑I, dated 29th April, 1978, be set aside with retrospective effect with all consequen tial benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on the night between 25th and 26th January, 1978, at 11‑10 p. m. the D. I.‑G. Sargodha paid a surprise visit to Police Station, Lalyian. He found the main gate was closed and there was not Santry on duty. It was also found that register No. 13 of Police Station was not available at the Police Station. On the basis of last allegation with which the appellant was concerned, a show‑cause notice was issued to the appellant and others requiring to explain their posi tions. This notice was issued under the Punjab Police E & D Rules, 1975. Respondent No. 2 heard the appellant in person and passed the following orders on 29th January, 1978, on the explanation of the appellant :‑

"Heard in person. Sternly warned to be careful in future and rein stated with effect from the date of suspension."

Thereafter on 14th February, 1978, the respondent No. 2 issued another show‑cause notice on the same allegation to the appellant and the S. H. O. although the matter had been finalized. The appellant submitted his explanation before respondent No. 2 and explained that he was totally inno cent and no false information had been given to the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 heard the appellant in person and passed the following order :‑

"Heard in person. Explanation not satisfactory and his name is removed from List B‑L"

The appellant has submitted his representation to respondent No. 1, who vide his order dated 7th March, 1979 rejected the same. The appellant was also punished with the forfeiture of one year service. The appellant submit ted another representation before the Inspector‑General of Police on 7th September, 1980. but to no effect. However, respondent No. 1 while not forwarding his representation to I.‑G. P. accepted the representation of the appellant partly, relating to the punishment of forfeiture of service nut maintained the punishment of non‑inclusion of his name in List B.‑I. Hence this appeal.

4 We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the relevant rules so cited in support of the contention of the appellant's case. The main allegation against the appellant in this case is that on the night between 25th and 26th June, 1978 he gave incorrect information to respondent No. 1 to the effect that Register No. 13 was with respondent No. 2. The record of this case when perused and relying on supporting evidence so produced before us as Annexure D', it is found that on 29th January, 1978 Register No. 13 is enter ed as being sent, as stated by the appellant to the relevant quarters. With this un-controverted evidence on the record it would not be possible to hold that punishment so awarded to the appellant for not entering his name in List B‑1 would be justified. If the punishing authority would have looked minutely into the record of this case, he would not have held the appellant guilty of this lapse or providing incorrect information. The D. I.‑G was correctly informed when he visited the P. S. on the night between 25th and 26th June, 1978, that the register was with respondent No. 2, which was taken away by him during inspection of P. S. With regard to the allegation that the name of the appellant was also entered in the list B‑I although he had not secured 170 marks and had only secured 168 marks, the D. I.‑G. Police has given his observation in his order, dated 17th June, 1981 as under :‑

"I have gone through the service record and appeal/representation of the Constable. His written papers have also been examined and it has been found that actually the marks obtained in this paper came to 144 whereas the calculation of the marks in the paper was incorrectly shown as 132. Thus, he in fact had obtained a total of 180 marks in B (1) Examination. Therefore, the alleged misconduct was not proved and the punishment awarded to him forfeiting his one year approved service is set aside."

With all this information on the record the order of removal of his name from List B‑I was passed due to some minor punishment on the record of the appellant which he received in his earlier career. In this respect we will refer to rule 13.8‑A of Police Rules, which was laid down the basis for removal of name for promotion from List B‑I. In this rule the qualification for retention in lists A, B or C has been made imperative only when a major punishment has been received by the incumbent. This rule does not lay down anywhere that due to minor punishment the punishing authority would be justified to order the removal of the name of the appellant from List B‑1. Rule 16.33 also is to the same effect and it only talks of this major punishment and not of the minor punishment. Learned District Attorney as well as representative of the Department have failed to point out any rule contrary to the same and thus were unable to repel the argument so advanced by the appellant in this behalf. The nutshell of the entire case is that the appellant's name has been removed on account of some minor punishment or poor performance in his earlier career and he has not been proved to be a recipient of major punishment for removal of his name from List B‑1 which would be sine qua non of rule 13.8‑A which is mandatory in nature.

6. The result is we accept the appeal and direct that the name of the appellant be restored to List B‑I. There will be no order as to costs.

A. E. 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.