MAHMOOD NAWAZ Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J. ‑Through this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order dated the 21st September, 1982 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Case No. 229/100/81.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary A. S. I. on 3‑9‑1966 and continued in the same position up to 5‑11‑1973 when he was put on pro bation by the order of the S. P. Sheikhupura. On 4‑11‑1975 respondent No. 3 D.‑I. G. Police (Punjab), Lahore Range, Lahore removed the peti tioner from the probationer's list and made him a temporary A. S. I. This order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8396/S/ 1979 in Lahore High Court and on the assurance of the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 the Court was pleased to make an order on 26‑4‑1980 that fresh order will be passed by the competent authority, i. e. S. P. concerned within three weeks.
In spite of this order of the learned Judge of the High Court and the undertaking of the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 the file did not reach the hands of the concerned S. P. and the matter lingered on for six months during which period the petitioner had been making repeated efforts to seek the implementation of the order of the learned High Court dated 25‑4‑1980 but to no avail. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal which was dismissed vide the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was put on probation on 5‑11‑1973 for a period of two years which was not extendable under the rules then applicable. This order of probation remained in force up to 8‑11‑1980 when petitioner's order of removal from probation was passed by respondent No. 4 which was not legal under the Police Rules or under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, and, therefore, the period could not be extended beyond two years. He further contended that the petitioner had been confirmed with effect from 26‑4‑1980 and was not `probationer' on 8‑11‑1980 and although this fact is men tioned in the impugned judgment but its effect on the exercise of power of the competent authority has completely been ignored and the petitioner was not heard by respondent No. 3 and thus he (the petitioner) has been condemned unheard. Lastly, the learned counsel contended that in the order dated 8‑11‑1980 the entire service record of the petitioner has been taken into consideration although the petitioner w. e. f. 3‑9‑1966 to 5‑11‑1973 was temporary A. S. I. and was not on probation and, therefore, the service record for the said period could not have been legally taken into consideration. Leave granted inter alia to consider the various points raised by the learned counsel.
S. Q. Leave granted.