Maj. ZIAUL HASSAN, HOME SECRETARY and others vs Mrs. NASEEM CHAUDHRY

' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 27-9-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court in Crl. Original No,279-W of 1999.

2. The dispute herein relates to the promotion of the respondent as Deputy Superintendent of Police.

3. This Court through judgment, dated 15-4-1999 passed in C.P.L.A. No,1617-L of 1997 entitled The Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore etc. v. Mrs. Naseem Chaudhry, etc., while dismissing the appeal of the Inspector-General of Police against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No,3097 of 1997, made the following observation:-- "5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Dr. A.Basit learned senior counsel for the respondent/ caveator and perused the available material on record. The Tribunal was right in holding that the respondent had not been promoted by superseding any officer senior to her. She was entitled to be promoted from the date her juniors were promoted. There was no valid reason not to consider her case for promotion as DSP as above. The impugned order appears to be just, fair and equitable. Mr. Ghuman was unable to substantiate his plea that the impugned order suffers from any illegality. Be that as it may, no substantial question of public importance is involved to warrant interference in these proceedings."

4. The petitioner not implemented the above order passed by this Court. The respondent therefore, approached the High Court for redress of her grievance. The contempt application was also filed on 25-1-1999 wherein notice was issued to the petitioner, who took the plea that the respondent could not be promoted as some disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against her. The contention was repelled by the learned Judge in Chambers vide the impugned order, dated 27-9- 1999, which is to the following effect:-- "The learned Advocate-General says that the petitioner has been suspended from service and as such the question of her promotion does not arise. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, placed on record, a copy of the order, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal on 30-8- 1999, whereby the order of suspension of the petitioner has been suspended. That being so, there is no hurdle left in the way the respondent for implementation of the orders passed by this Court. The needful shall now be done within one week from today failing which coercive process shall be issued against the respondents."

5. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab submitted that the High Court fell into error by not considering in true perspective that the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the respondent and, therefore, there was genuine hurdle in the way of petitioner to promote her in accordance with the orders passed by the Supreme Court as well as the High Court.

6. We are afraid that the mere fact that some disciplinary proceedings are pending against the respondent is not a sufficient ground to disregard the order passed by this Court. However, we may clarify that promotion of the respondent as DSP will not debar the petitioner to continue with the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent if any, justly, fairly and in accordance with law.

7. With the above observation, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal declined.