Find a Lawyer

Case No. 932/71 of 1984, decided on 13th October, 1985.

‑‑‑Promotion‑‑Minor punishment do not stand in the way of promotion.

‑‑‑S.4‑‑Pro forma promotion‑‑Appellant a Police Official ignored for promotion on probation as A.S.I. due to adverse remarks and 2 punish ments of "censure" subsequently approved for promotion as temporary Sub‑Inspector but meanwhile number of A.S.Is. junior to appellant promoted as temporary S.I.‑‑Adverse remarks subsequently expunged‑ Appellant, in circumstances, held, had a fit case for pro forma promotion from date of promotion of ‑Junior and minor punishment of censure cannot stand in way of promotion‑‑Tribunal directing that appellant be granted pro forma promotion accordingly and be brought on list "E".

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

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

Mr. Nazir Ahmad, A.S.I. No. 1727 of Faisalabad District has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, wherein he has impleaded the respondents as mentioned above.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that impugned orders dated 4‑1‑1984 (Annexure 'B'), 4‑1‑1984 (Annexure 'C') and the final order dated 24‑10‑1984/22‑11‑1984 be set aside and respondents be directed to promote the appellant as A.S.I. on probation from 2‑1‑1984, list 'E' from 2‑1‑1984 and Sub‑Inspector from 4‑1‑1984.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined as Constable on 1‑9‑1964 and in due course was promoted to the rank of Officiating A.S.I. w.e.f. 21‑11‑1977. His case for promotion on probation to the rank of A.S.I. was duly considered alongwith his contemporaries and he was not found fit for the post and was dropped for being placed on probation. The reason was that he had questionable record of service. He had earned 'C' report for the year 1981 and had 2 punishments of "Censure" at his discredit. Consequently vide Order No. 4651/E, dated' 8‑4‑1985, the appellant was admitted to list 'E' w.e.f. 7‑4‑1985 and by another Order No. 8491‑95/E, dated 30‑6‑1985, the appellant was approved for promotion as temporary Sub‑Inspector w.e.f. 1‑7‑1985. In. the meanwhile a number of A.S.Is. who were junior to the appellant were promoted to the rank of temporary S.I. and were admitted to list 'E' w.e.f. 2‑1‑198,E vide letter dated 4‑1‑1984 of respondent No.l, (Annexure 'B') and vide letter dated 4‑1‑1984 (Annexure 'C') of respondent No.l, some of his juniors were promoted as Sub‑Inspector w.e.f. 4‑1‑1984. The appellant made a representation on 23‑1‑1984 against the above mentioned two orders to the Inspector‑General of Police Punjab, Lahore which was considered and rejected vide his order dated, 24‑10‑1984 conveyed to the appellant vide Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad endst: dated 22‑11‑1984. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties i.e., Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Ar. Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney, assisted by the representative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents and had also consulted the record of this case very carefully.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was ignored for promotion due to the following reasons. when his juniors were so promoted in the year 1984:‑

(i) That he earned the adverse remarks for the year 1981; and

(ii) He had 2 punishment of 'Censure' to his discredit.

It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the adverse remarks were expunged vide judgment dated 11‑11‑1984 of this Tribunal in Case No.251/823 of 1984, of the appellant. Thus, the very basis stood removed for which the appellant was ignored for promotion in the year 1984 when his juniors were so promoted. As far as the punishment of 2 censures against the appellant are concerned the same also cannot stand in his way of promotion, keeping in view the judgment already given by this Tribunal dated 4‑1‑1984 in case of Tajamal Hussain, Inspector Police, Case No. 516/398 of 1983, which reads as follows:‑

(Para. 6‑‑Last lines)‑‑

"Even according to the rules the minor punishment do not stand in the way for promotion to higher rank. Thus, we hold that the Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab while considering the appellant for admission of his name in list 'F' w.e.f. 18‑5‑1975 has committed a grave mistake of law."

6. However, the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and has rebutted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that at the time when the appellant was considered for promotion alongwith the juniors he had adverse remarks to his credit for the year 1981 and thus he has been correctly superseded by the Department. Hence no exception can be taken against the impugned orders which are valid and lawful orders.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case very carefully. I agree with the learned District Attorney that at that time when the appellant was considered for promotion alongwith his colleagues in January 1984, the appellant had adverse remarks for the year 1981 in his Character Roll and hence the appellant was rightly ignored for promotion on the basis of this adverse report. Also he had two "Censures" to his discredit. However, what I find is that later on this disqualification of adverse remarks for the year 1981 had been removed on expunction of these adverse remarks vide judgment dated 11‑11‑1984 of this Tribunal in Case No.251/823 of 1984 of the appellant. Furthermore, I have gone through the judgment in case of Tajamal Hussain, Inspector of Police, given by this Tribunal in Case No. 516/398 of 1983 dated 4‑1‑1984 wherein we have already held that the minor punishment do not stand in the way of promotion to a higher rank. Two "Censures" being minor punishment as per Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 cannot thus, stand in the way of the appellant for his promotion. Keeping in view the above changed circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the case of the appellant is a fit case for awarding pro forma promotion to the appellant from the date from which his juniors were so promoted as A.S.I. (brought to list 'E' w.e.f. 2‑1‑1984) and temporary S.I. I cannot also remain oblivious of the fact that the appellant has also been promoted to list 'E' as well as Sub‑Inspector vide order dated 8‑4‑1985, and 30‑6‑1985 respectively, even the above mentioned two "Censures stand in his record. It is apparent that real hurdle in the way of his promotion viz‑a‑viz his juniors was aforesaid adverse remarks for the year 1981 (now stand expunged) and not two 'Censures."

8. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that the appellant's case is a fit case for award of pro forma promotion as A.S.I. bringing him on list 'E' w.e.f. 2‑1‑1984, promotion as Temporary Sub‑Inspector w.e.f. 4‑1‑1984, the dates from which his juniors were so promoted. g The appeal is accepted. It is directed that the appellant be granted pro forma promotion as A.S.I., be brought on list 'E' and promoted as temporary Sub‑Inspector, the date from which his juniors were so promoted.

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.