Ch. MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed his service appeal as time-barred. The core legal question involved whether the service appeal was barred by limitation and whether the petitioner was entitled to pro forma promotion despite facing disciplinary proceedings and penalties. The Supreme Court held that while the Tribunal erred on the limitation aspect by ignoring the final departmental order passed by the Governor, the petitioner had no case on merits because pro forma promotion is not granted when a civil servant was not wrongfully deprived of promotion, given that multiple disciplinary inquiries concluded against him with penalties. Furthermore, the Court held that the plea of discrimination failed as the cases of his colleagues were factually distinguishable. The key principle laid down is that pro forma promotion requires a wrongful deprivation of promotion, which does not exist where departmental inquiries against the civil servant resulted in the imposition of penalties.
- Whether a service appeal is barred by limitation when filed against the final departmental order passed by the Governor?
- Is a civil servant entitled to pro forma promotion when departmental inquiries against him have concluded with the imposition of penalties?
- What constitutes the necessary identity of facts to sustain a plea of discrimination in matters of promotion among civil servants?
- Section 21, Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 20-1-1992 whereby a servile appeal filed by him was dismissed as time barred.
2. The petitioner joined the Forest Service as a Forest Ranger (BS-11) on 5-10-1962. This post was upgraded to BS-16 by the Government w,e,f. 1-5-1977. When the question of adjustment of the petitioner in the higher grade came up for consideration it was found that six disciplinary cases were pending against him. His promotion/upgradation, therefore, was deferred. These departmental cases terminated subsequently and the petitioner was awarded the penalty of censure, stoppage of annual increment without future effect and recoveries of small amounts of Rs,30.40 and Rs,115.
3. After the inquiries had so concluded, the case ex-post facto for pro forma promotion was made out of the appellant as well as of his other colleagues similarly affected. The departmental recommendation was to promote the petitioner. However, the competent authority did not promote the petitioner though his other colleagues were promoted by order dated 31-7-1989. He sought a reconsideration of this order by an application dated 4-8-1990 which did not succeed before the Governor vide order dated 4;10-1990. He thereupon filed the service appeal before the Tribunal on 31-10-1990.
4. The Tribunal did not examine the merits of the entitlement of the petitioner and instead held the appeal to be barred by limitation taking the order dated 31-7-1989 to be final order ignoring altogether the order dated 4-10-90 which was specifically mentioned and against which relief was sought.
5. The view taken by the Tribunal on the question of limitation is manifestly erroneous. Had the facts been not clear, it was a case of remand. However, it appears from the record itself that against the order dated 31-7-1989 the petitioner moved for review in August, 1990. It was beyond time. Section 21 of the Civil Servants Act provides period of sixty days for moving such an application.
6. Apart from the question of limitation we find that on merits the petitioner has no case. He was seeking pro forma promotion. Pro forma promotion is made only when a civil servant has been wrongly deprived of the promotion post. In the case in hand the departmental inquiries all ended against the petitioner and he was also punished in one of them. There is, therefore, no question of wrongful deprivation.
7. On the question of discrimination we find, after examining the cases of 8 his colleagues, that they were on facts distinguishable. The identity required for making out a case of discrimination does not exist.
8. In the circumstances, leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 5 cases
- CHAIRMAN, FBR through Member Administration vs MUHAMMAD ASFANDYAR 2019 KLR Supreme Court 377, 2019 PLC (C.S.) 449, 2019 P.S.C. 646, 2019
- CHAIRMAN, FBR Versus MUHAMMAD ASFANDYAR JANJUA 2019 SCMR 349
- DIRECTOR-GENERAL INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, ISLAMABAD and others vs AMIR 2010 PLC (C.S.) 946
- DIRECTOR-GENERAL INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, ISLAMABAD and others vs AMIR 2011 SCMR 389
- Sardar SABIR HUSSAIN KHAN ABBASI vs AZAD GOVERNMENT and another 2004 PLC (C.S.) 914