Find a Lawyer

Case No. 549/1512 of 1981, decided on 17th May, 1982.

---R. 13.8 and Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4 Admitting Police Official to List B‑I‑Adverse entries based upon minor punishments‑ Create no bar to admitting to List B‑1 Appellant passing examination for List B‑I but not brought thereon on grounds of four adverse entries as a result of minor punishments a Impugned order, in circumstances, held, unwarranted and Tribunal's directing appellant to be brought on List B‑I.

---‑ Performance of civil servant when adjudged, competent authority would be well‑advised to take into consideration bright aspects of his career also.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

.‑ Haji Muhammad, Constable No. 4813, Police Station, Mughalpura, Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Superintendent of Police, Lahore, D. 1.‑G. of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, and I.‑G. of. Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that impugned orders, date 11th August, 1981 and 10th September. 1981, be set aside and respondents be directed to admit the appellant to List 'B‑I' by relaxing the necessary provisions of rules with regard to the age as is being done in other cases.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who is under graduate, joined Police force on 12th June, 1972 and passed F. P. B. Course with all round first position. He was awarded List 'A' in June, 1977. His career depends upon his admission in List B‑I a privilege which was not being afforded to him; the appellant appeared before respondent No. 2 and requested him that he may be allowed to sit in the examination for List B‑I as he was just nearing 33 years of age and would become overage for being nominated for Lower Class Course. The appellant was informed by respondent No. 2 through a letter, dated 26th July, 1980, Annexure 'A‑I' that examination for List B‑I would be conducted before he becomes overage. He further reiterated in his letters dated 1st October, 1980 and 13th May,‑ 1981, placed on record as Annexures 'B' and 'C'. Appellant was allowed to sit in the examination and was able to secure pass marks. However, the appellant received letter, dated 11th August, 1981, by which he was informed that despite having secured pass marks he could not be admitted to List B‑I because of four adverse entries to his discredit pertaining to the years 1977 and 1978, His representation against this information/order was rejected by respondent No. 3 vide his order, dated 19th September, 1981. Hence this appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has sub mitted that four adverse entries referred to in para. 3 of the impugned order, dated 11th August, 1981 are the entries with regard to the infliction of minor punishment, therefore, the same cannot be made basis for not bringing him on List B‑I, after he has passed the examination in this behalf. Learned counsel has challenged the validity of this order on the strength of rule 13.8‑A of Police Rules, which does not recognize the bar of minor punishment to List B‑I. It has been further contended that respondent No. 2 has ignored an established fact that appellant had earned as many as 28 Commendation Certificates from his superiors in recognition of his good performance on various occasions. He pleaded that in view of a large number of commendation certificates the four said entries would be of no consequence. With regard to the age factor the learned counsel urged that the appellant's crossing age limit was due to taking no action on the appeal of the appellant by the respondent to conduct examination in belated manner and secondly to the wrong decision which was contrary to the rules and as such he deserved relaxation of age which is usually done in such cases. On the other hand learned District Attorney has contended that the appellant has not been ignored because of four adverse entries to his credit but has only been ignored because he has crossed his age limit.

5. We have taken into consideration arguments so raised before us by the parties and find from the perusal of impugned order, dated 11th August, 1981 that the appellant has been ignored because of four adverse entries to his credit pertaining to the years 1977 and 1978. Learned D. I.‑G of police has further observed that although appellant has attained the age of 33 years on 9th October, 1980, yet his name would have been admitted to promotion List B‑I in spite of his being overage provisionally like others and his case would have been referred to C. P. O. for relaxation in the upper age limit but the same has not been done because of his bad record. In the face of these observations contained in the impugned order, dated 11th August, 1981, the argument of the learned District Attorney falls to the ground that the case of the appellant was hit by age bar and not due to bad entries in his Character Roll. Police Rules on this point are very clear as given is rule 13.8 which create bar for bringing a person on List B‑I although be has passed his examination if it was found that he was awarded major punishment for some specific offence. In the case of the appellant we have satisfied ourselves from the perusal of the record of this case that he was not recipient of any major punishment in his career and the only impediments in his way were four bad entries. These entries were the result of minor punishment so awarded to him, therefore, we are clear in our mind that in view of the mandatory provision of rule 13.8 of the Police Rules the D, I.‑G. of Police cannot ignore him as such. As mentioned in the earlier part of our judgment that the D. I.‑G. of Police himself has unequivocally observed that if he had not these four bad entries to his credit, his case would have been treated at par with others for relaxation of age limit. We are conscious of the argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant that when performance of a civil servant is adjudged, the authority so adjudieating out that matter, would be well‑advised to take into consideration the bright aspects of his career also. Without entering into this controversy regarding bright and dark aspects of the appellant what we have to decide is whether the name of the appellant can be ignored from List B‑I on the strength of the minor punishment or not, we have no hesitation to find that the action taken against the appellant vide impugned orders is not warranted by the Police rule 13.8 itself.

6. The result is we accept the appeal and direct the respondent to bring the name of the appellant on List B‑I. However, 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.