1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑ Confirmation order implemented‑‑Deconfirmation‑Not possible except as punishment. (b) Civil service‑ ‑Confirmation‑Officiating Police Inspector‑Prescribed probation period not yet completed‑Confirmed by I.‑G. of Police as a reward for meritorious performance‑‑Confirmation order implemented- Subsequently confirmation order withdrawn on plea that he was too junior and could not be confirmed under Rules‑Confirmation on account of meritorious performance irrespective of Rules not with out precedent and not legally barred‑Deconfirmation order, in circumstances, set aside‑Punjab Police Rules, 1934, r. 13.18. Mian Khurshid Alam Ramay for Appellant. A. G. Humayun, Government Pleader for Respondent. M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑The brief facts leading to his appeal are that the appellant along with Head Constable Amanullah No. 3927 and Liaqat Ali, Constable No. 3725, arrested one Shaheena a proclaimed offender of Lahore from the area of Azad Kashmir. In lieu of this outstanding performance the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, vide his letter No. 3036/PA/77, dated 7th September, 1977 recommended to reward the appellant an officiating Ins pector to be confirmed as such with a cash award of Rs. 2,

000. The aforesaid recommendations were accepted by the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, who was the Competent Authority in this case and the appellant was accordingly confirmed as Inspector and was allotted No. C/142. The orders were issued on 7th of September, 1977 and the Gazette Notification was also issued accordingly on the 14th of September, 1977. The other two members, Head Constable and the Constable were also suitable rewarded by the Department. It appears that subsequently, the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, vide his order dated 26th September, 1977, withdrew the order of confirmation on the basis that the appellant was too junior in the rank of Inspector and should not have been confirmed as such. The Deputy Inspector‑‑General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, was also advised by the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, that such recommendations should not have been initiated altoge ther but D. I.‑G., Lahore Range, appears to have reiterated his recommen dations. However, the confirmation of the appellant was withdrawn and a Gazette Notification deconfirming the appellant was issued on the 19th of October, 1977, Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Inspector -General of Police, Punjab, the appellant preferred this appeal before us. He submitted that after the issuance of the Gazette Notification con firming the appellant as Inspector nothing was left with the Inspector General of Police, to withdraw the order unless the same was on discipli nary grounds. Since the appellant was not served with any charge‑sheet or show‑cause notice, the I.‑G. Police could not deconfirm the appel lant. He also submitted that in fact he had earned the confirmation by his meritorious performance and the D. I.‑G. Lahore Range had made the recommendations taking into consideration the same. He also submit ted that there was no justification to withdraw the confirmation on the ground that the appellant was too junior. He also submitted that the Confirmation on the ground of outstanding merits has nothing to do with the seniority. He also argued that he was not served with a show cause notice before withdrawing the confirmation order which had been duly acted upon and the appellant had acquired the status of a confirmed Inspector of Police. He also relied on a number of precedents (grounds `g' to 'k') in which similar confirmations had been allowed by the Government or by the Department for outstanding services rendered by the civil servants concerned. He thus pressed for the acceptance of the appeal. The Government Pleader, however, contended that the confirmation of the appellant, in the first instance, had been wrongly recommended by the D. I.‑G. Lahore Range and the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab has the powers to withdraw the same under Punjab Police Rule 13.18, according to which it was necessary that before‑ confirmation every Police Officer has to be promoted, in the first instance, on probation for two years, whereas the appellant had been officiating and he was never put on probation and there was no other provision for making the confirmation of the appellant in the rank of Inspector. After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that this appeal must succeed. In the first instance, the confirmation order had taken effect and the same could not be with drawn except as a punishment. We agree with the appellant that there was no power left with the Departmental Authorities to withdraw the confir mation after the order had taken the legal effect. The Department has also failed to rebut the contention of the appellant that in quite a few cases the similar treatment has been meted out to other incumbents in whose cases the orders were still in force. It is not disputed that the offciating period of service could be treated as period spent on probation. Moreover, there is no legal bar for the confirmation of any outstanding officer even during the probation period. We, therefore, find no bar against the confirmation of the appellant in the rank of Inspector in lieu of his meritorious performance. We accordingly accept this appeal and the order dated 26th of September, 1977 and the Notification dated 17th October, 1977, deconfirming the appellant are hereby set aside. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal accepted.