Ch. MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through Chief
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner, a former Forest Ranger, sought pro forma promotion after being denied the same due to pending disciplinary proceedings, which ultimately resulted in penalties. While his colleagues were promoted in 1989, the petitioner was not. He filed a departmental representation in 1990, which was rejected, leading to his appeal before the Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeal on limitation grounds and whether the petitioner was entitled to pro forma promotion. The Supreme Court held that while the Tribunal's finding on limitation was erroneous, the petitioner's case failed on merits. The Court determined that pro forma promotion is only applicable where a civil servant is wrongly deprived of promotion, which was not the case here given the petitioner's disciplinary record. Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the claim of discrimination, as the petitioner's circumstances were factually distinguishable from his promoted colleagues. Leave to appeal was consequently refused.
- Is a civil servant entitled to pro forma promotion if they were denied promotion due to pending disciplinary inquiries that resulted in penalties?
- Does the existence of disciplinary penalties against a civil servant preclude a claim of wrongful deprivation of promotion?
- Can a claim of discrimination in service matters be sustained if the factual circumstances of the colleagues are distinguishable?
- Section 21, Civil Servants Act 1973
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 20-1-1992 whereby a service 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. Tile 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 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