Mushtaq Ahmad (Head Clerk) v. Department (DC Office)
Decided   on:     10.02.2025
Under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974

Introduction

In a significant judgment reinforcing the protection of civil servants’ promotion rights, the Punjab Service Tribunal has set aside a demotion order issued against a Head Clerk who was reverted from Assistant (BS-14) to Senior Clerk (BS-09) on the basis of a technical irregularity in the constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).

The Tribunal categorically held that an employee cannot be penalized for procedural lapses committed by the department itself.

Factual Background

The appellant, Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, was initially promoted from Senior Clerk (BS-09) to Assistant (BS-14) on current charge basis against a vacant post in District Bhakkar. The record established:

• A clear vacancy existed since 14.02.2014 due to promotion of another official.
• The appellant was the senior-most employee in his cadre.
• He possessed the required eligibility and experience.
• A formal Departmental Promotion Committee considered his case.
• The competent authority issued promotion orders.

Subsequently, an inquiry was initiated on the complaint that the DPC was constituted short of one member — specifically, the Deputy Commissioner was not included as head of the committee as required under promotion rules.

On the basis of the inquiry report, the department passed an order dated 18.08.2025 demoting the appellant and directing fresh DPC proceedings.

Aggrieved, the appellant filed a service appeal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

Core Legal Question

Whether a civil servant can be demoted solely because the Departmental Promotion Committee was not properly constituted, when:

• The vacancy existed;
• The employee was senior and eligible;
• The competent authority had passed promotion orders;
• There was no allegation of fraud, concealment, or misconduct by the employee.

Findings of the Tribunal

After hearing arguments and perusing the record, the Tribunal delivered a reasoned judgment with the following key findings:

1. Existence of Vacancy Was Undisputed

The post of Assistant became vacant due to promotion of another officer. Therefore, the promotion was not against a non-existent post.

2. Eligibility and Fitness Were Established

The appellant was the senior-most in the cadre and was found fit and eligible by the committee. There was no material suggesting incompetence or ineligibility.

3. No Involvement of the Appellant in Procedural Lapse

The Tribunal observed that there was not even an iota of evidence showing that the appellant influenced or manipulated the constitution of the DPC. The omission of including the Deputy Commissioner was an administrative lapse attributable to the Executive District Officer.

An employee cannot be punished for acts or omissions of the appointing authority.

4. Competent Authority’s Order Cannot Be Nullified Arbitrarily

The Tribunal emphasized that:

• Recommendations of a Departmental Promotion Committee are advisory in nature.
• The final authority rests with the competent authority.
• Once a lawful order of promotion is issued, it cannot be withdrawn mechanically without establishing illegality attributable to the beneficiary.

5. Protection of Vested Service Rights

The Tribunal further noted that juniors of the appellant were promoted in 2021. Demoting the appellant and placing his case again before a fresh DPC would seriously prejudice his accrued and vested service rights.

Such action would amount to arbitrary discrimination.

Legal Principles Reaffirmed

This judgment reinforces important principles of service jurisprudence:

✔ No Punishment Without Personal Fault

A government servant cannot be penalized for administrative irregularities committed by superiors.

✔ Protection of Accrued Rights

Once promotion is granted by competent authority and acted upon, it creates vested rights that cannot be disturbed casually.

✔ Fairness and Natural Justice

Administrative authorities must consider equity, fairness, and proportionality before reversing service benefits.

✔ Technical Irregularities Do Not Invalidate Substantive Rights

Where eligibility, vacancy, and competence are established, minor procedural lapses in committee constitution cannot invalidate promotion.

Final Order of the Tribunal

The Punjab Service Tribunal:

• Set aside the impugned demotion order dated 18.08.2025.
• Allowed the service appeal.
• Declared the appellant entitled to all financial benefits for the period during which he remained demoted.
• Ordered the file to be consigned to record.

Why This Judgment Is Important for Civil Servants

This decision is highly significant for public servants facing:

• Cancellation of promotions after years,
• Demotion on technical grounds,
• Review of DPC proceedings,
• Administrative reversals without misconduct,
• Discrimination vis-à-vis juniors.

The judgment strengthens the protection of legitimate expectation and safeguards employees from arbitrary departmental actions.

Practical Implication for Service Law Practice

For practitioners of service law, this case highlights:

• The importance of distinguishing between “procedural defect” and “substantive illegality.”
• The binding nature of competent authority’s promotion orders.
• The necessity of proving employee involvement before withdrawing service benefits.
• The role of the Tribunal in correcting administrative excesses.

Conclusion

The Tribunal rightly concluded that the department failed to appreciate that it was effectively punishing the appellant for its own procedural lapse.

The decision serves as a reminder that service law is not merely technical; it is grounded in fairness, equity, and protection of lawful rights.

Promotion once granted on merit and eligibility cannot be taken away lightly.

The successful outcome of this case reflects the effective and persuasive advocacy of Mr. Allah Nawaz Khosa, Advocate, who represented the appellant before the Punjab Service Tribunal. Through careful analysis of service jurisprudence, detailed examination of the record, and focused legal arguments, learned counsel successfully demonstrated that the appellant could not be penalized for procedural lapses committed by the department.

His arguments emphasized the protection of vested service rights, the supremacy of orders passed by the competent authority, and the settled principle that no civil servant can be punished for an administrative omission not attributable to him. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and record, was pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned demotion order.

This judgment stands as another example of dedicated legal representation in service matters and reinforces the importance of principled advocacy before judicial forums.