1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

It was accordingly recommended as follows: - "In view of his extraordinary services he deserves accelerated promotion. It is, therefore, recommended that he may be awarded with ante-dated confirmation in rank of Inspector with effect from 23-6-1978 by counting, his two years service from the date bf assumption of the rank i.e. 24-6-1976 as probation period."

3. It is stated that the appellant was recommended for the award of Pakistan Police Medal gallantry twice and for the award of Pride of Performance. The appellant had been awarded Daily Jang's Talent award of 1993. It is also contended that the recommendations of D.I.-G. are in line with the latest policy of the Government contained in the I.-G.P's. instructions dated 8-9-1996 according to which accelerated promotion could be granted in the following two cases:- (a) Where officers risk their lives in encounters with criminals and display outstanding gallantry/valour. (b) Where officers show extremely outstanding performance of theorder of national importance."

4. The appellant has pleaded that his case for ante-dated promotion falls within the abovementioned two categories but no action was taken although respondent No. 1 had actually approved the recommendations of the D.I.-G. as stated above. It is further contended that discriminatory treatment has been shown to the appellant inasmuch as performance of his juniors i.e. respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 was recognized by the award of ante-dated confirmation as Inspectors whereas the case of the appellant has not been processed even though it was strongly recommended by the D.I.-G. and S.S.P., Gujranwala.

5. Written objections were not filed by respondents Nos. 3 to

6. In the written objections filed by respondent No. 1, which were also adopted by Secretary Home (respondent No. 2), it is stated that the representation of the appellant was examined under the rules, and he was also heard in person by the D.P.C. that respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were given out-of-turn promotion/confirmation in recognition of their outstanding/excellent performance under the Police Rule 13.20 which empowers the authority to relax rules for the grant of out-of-turn promotion/confirmation and the said rule has since been modified vide letter dated 7-11-1994 issued by respondent No. 2, conveying that the following proviso has been added to Rule 13.20. "Provided that nothing contained in the Rules shall empower the Inspector-General of Police and other Police Authorities to give out of turn confirmations/promotion, ante-dating in seniority, ante-dated admission to various lists maintained under the rules, in/shape of rewards, in appreciation of outstanding performance."

6. It is further contended by the respondents that there is no rule for the grant of seniority on analogy basis and that confirmation is made according to seniority-cum-fitness and availability of permanent post; that the appellant was confirmed as Inspector alongwith his batch mates with effect from 1-7-1985 and no junior to him was confirmed earlier to him in routine.

7. Arguments were heard and record perused. It has not been denied that the appellant enjoys excellent record of service and recommendations for confirmation of the appellant as Inspector with effect from 23-6-1978 were made by the D.I.-G., Gujranwala and were also appreciated by the former I.-G. P. The seniority of the appellant as confirmed S. I. is also not disputed. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, strongly argued that the appellant has been discriminated against. No objection could be taken to the assertion of the respondents that the confirmation in the rank is made according to seniority-cum-fitness and availability of permanent post. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the benefit of confirmation occurring to the appellant under the rules has not been allowed. Rule 13.18 provides as under: -- "All Police Officers promoted in rank shall be on probation for two years, provided that the appointing authority may, by a special order in each case, permit periods of officiating service to count towards the period of probation. On the conclusion of the probationary period a report shall be rendered to the authority empowered to confirm the promotion who shall either confirm the officer or revert him. In no case shall the period of probation be extended beyond two years and the confirming authority must arrive at a definite decision within that period whether the officer should be confirmed or reverted. While on probation officers may be reverted without departmental proceedings. Such reversion shall not be considered reduction for the purpose of rule 16.4. "

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that he was entitled to be confirmed as Inspector as he had earned excellent service record for confirmation with effect from 23-6-1978 by treating the two years of his officiating promotion as probation. Had respondent No. 1 followed the recommendations of the D.I.-G., there was no ground left with respondent No. 1 to delay or deprive the appellant of the benefit of confirmation. This was in fact allowed in many other cases. In this view of the matter, it would appear that the ante-dated confirmation is not actually out-of-turn benefit but is a normal benefit admissible to the appellant and others under rule 13.18 provided the competent Authority does not revert an officiating police officer for unsatisfactory performance during probation period and a vacancy is available against which the officer is to be confirmed by treating his officiating service as probation. The question of unsatisfactory performance is ruled out in the instant case as the appellant is admittedly enjoying excellent record of service. No reason has been advanced by the respondent as to why the recommendation of the D.I.-G. could not be accepted. Nothing in the recommendations made by the D.I.-G. has been contradicted. It shall therefore, be presumed that all the conditions for confirmation by counting the two years of officiating service of the appellant from 23-6-1976 towards probation, including the availability of a vacancy, were, fulfilled when D.I.-G., Gujranwala made strong recommendations in favour of the appellant and respondent No. l admittedly recorded his appreciation thereon. It is, therefore, not necessary to go into the question how respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were given ante-dated confirmation or whether the appellant could also claim consideration of his case on similar grounds. His claim for confirmation as Inspector with effect from 23-6-1978 is independently justified under rule 13.18. It may, however, be stated that the ante-dating confirmation of respondents Nos.3 to 6 also seems to be independently valid under the said rule, and whatever considerations formed the basis of their ante-dated confirmation can hardly be challenged under rule 13.18. As regards the contention of the respondents that no officer junior to the appellant was confirmed earlier than him in routine, suffice it to say that the question of confirming or not confirming his juniors in routine does not affect his right to claim the benefit admissible to him under the rules. Further, it is not entirely correct to say that no officer junior to him was confirmed earlier than him; respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were admittedly junior to the appellant as confirmed A.Is. but they were allowed ante-dated confirmation in higher ranks. It cannot be said that their ante dated/confirmations were in violation of rule 13.18 Similarly the grant of ante-dated confirmation to the appellant with effect from 23-6-1978 would also not only be admissible and in consonance with the said rule but also can be claimed by him in accordance with the rules.

9. In the light of the foregoing, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 30-11-1996 is set aside and the appellant is declared entitled to be confirmed as Inspector with effect from 23-6-1978, and for further promotion to higher ranks in accordance with the rules.

10. Patties be informed accordingly. H.B.T./543/Sr.P Appeal allowed.