MUHAMMAD AYYAZ Versus I.G. OF POLICE, PUNJAB

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN) .‑‑Mohammad Ayyaz, A. S. I. was posted at D. I. Khan when the order of S. P., Dera Ghazi Khan reverting him to the post of A. S. I. was served on him on 12th November, 1975. He appealed to the D. I. G. Multan to which no reply has been received.

2. The appellant w4s recruited as Constable on 22nd December, 1962 and then promoted as A. S. I. on 1st September, 1966. He was promoted in absentia in 1973 when his juniors were promoted as the appellant was serving in East Pakistan. He was granted proforma promotion w. e. f. 17th July, 1971.

3. On l5th July, 1975 the appellant was charged with obtaining illegal gratification on 19th June, 1975. He replied on 12th November, 1975. On the same day an order of reversion was passed. The enquiry actually started three days after his order of reversion. The finding was that he held him guilty and maintained the order of reversion already levied on him. On the instructions of the Home Department D. I. G. Multan ordered a registration of a case on 16th December, 1975. The enquiry was entrusted to S. S. P. (Lines) who submitted a report that no criminal case was made out but suggested departmental action. The enquiry officer reported that no charge was established. S. S. P. did not agree with the report and issued a charge‑sheet on 18th June, 1976. D. S. P, (HQ) reported that no charges could be established. S. S. P., however, held the appellant guilty. The contention of the appellant is that the reversion was a penalty in his case and it was ordered with a mala fide intention although nothing was proved against him. We have heard the parties. The decision of the competent authority has been influenced by the directions issued by the higher authorities. This is ap parent from fact that in all the enquiries carried out against the appellant it was held that the charges were not proved. However, vide Order No.1 4606 dated 17th February, 1979, D. I.‑G. Multan Range has again pro moted the appellant and given him his original seniority. The contention of the appellant has been accepted by the Department and the appeal is, thus rendered infructuous.