DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, GUJRANWALA and others vs ANWAR
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which allowed the service appeal filed by the respondent. The respondent had challenged the denial of his due seniority and promotions along with his batchmates appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspectors in the Punjab Police. The core legal question concerned whether an employee could be denied seniority and promotion due to a pending inquiry and failure to cross an efficiency bar when he was subsequently exonerated. The Supreme Court held that since the respondent was exonerated in the inquiry and the punishments were of a minor nature, he could not be deprived of his seniority and promotions along with his batchmates under the applicable rules. The petition was accordingly dismissed as no question of law of public importance was involved.
- Whether an employee exonerated in a departmental inquiry can be denied seniority and promotion along with his batchmates?
- Does the withholding of promotion due to failure to cross an efficiency bar justify denial of seniority when minor punishments are involved and the employee is exonerated?
- When does a service matter involve a question of law of public importance to warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
' ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 28-11-1996, passed by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, allowing service appeal filed by respondent No, 1, against denying him due seniority and promotions alongwith his batch mates appointed as A.S.-Is. In the Punjab Police.
2. The respondent was appointed as A.S.-I. In the Police Department alongwith others. Thereafter, his batchmates were confirmed as A.S.-Is. From 1-12-1973, but the respondent was not confirmed with his batchmates and was confirmed with effect from,23-7-1979, and because of it he was also denied further promotions in the department alongwith his batchmates, on the ground that there was an inquiry pending against him. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent was exonerated in the inquiry. He, however, contended that since the promotion of the respondent was withheld because of his failing to cross the efficiency bar he was not entitled to the seniority and promotion etc., as claimed by him.
3. The Service Tribunal duly considered the very contentions raised by the learned counsel before us and found that as the respondent was exonerated in the inquiry and the said punishments were of minor nature, therefore, under the rules, he could not be deprived of his seniority and promotions alongwith his batchmates and allowed the appeal with certain consequential directions. Hence, this petition by the Department.
4. We have gone through the judgment of the Tribunal, and we are of the view that the same has been passed by the Tribunal on relevant considerations, and no question of law of public importance is involved to call for interference by this Court.