1. ' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN)-Ch. Abdul Qayyum, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Islamabad has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act against order bearing No, 2750/E-22, dated 21st September, 1977, vide notification No, 13009-10/EC, dated 17th June, 1978 whereby the appellant's deconfirmation was ordered. He has impleaded Inspector- General of Police as respondent.
2. ' By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned notification dated 17th June, 1978 be declared null and void and ineffective on the appellant and the said orders and notification be set aside.
3. ' Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined as P S I on 10th March, 1960. He has been admitted to list 'F' in 1972. He was promoted as P I in 1977 and was confirmed as such w. e. f. 20th August, 1977, vide Notification No, 15355, E-22, dated 21st September, 1977. The appellant was promoted as P D S P w. e. f. 17th November, 1977. It was by the impugned notification that his earlier confirmation as P I has been cancelled and he has been declared as reconfirmed. The appellant aggrieved by the impugned notification, preferred representation to respondent No, 1 on 24th June; 1980 but the same could not be decided and in pursuance of his earlier representation he filed an application dated 9th June, 1981 for decision of his ease which according to the appellant is still undecided.
4. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance, It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that his confirmation in the rank of P I was effected on the basis of repeated recommendations by different superior officers for his extraordinary good work. It has been submitted that once the appellant's said confirmation in the rank of P I was made, the order of deconfirmation could not be made and the action was taken by the respondent was alien known to the service laws, the Police Act and Police Rules. A grievance has been made that once the appellant gained a lawful right the same could not be taken away without calling upon him to show cause for the same. It has been further added that even the said impugned notification was never communicated to the appellant and he only learnt it indirectly from other source. It has also been further claimed that the appellant has been promoted as P D S P on regular basis w. e. f. 17th November, 1977, vide notification No, H. P. 111/5-22/75, dated 1st October 1978. According to him his promotion as P D S P was scrutinized by the Departmental promotion Committee in terms of M L Instructions No, 21 by Martial Law Administrator Punjab and the same was fully confirmed.
5. ' On the other hand the learned D. A. Has adopted the parawise comments submitted by the Department that as this confirmation as P I was out of turn and had caused heart burning to the other P Is it was on their representation that this out of turn confirmation was cancelled. He has also accepted that the representation of the appellant is still with the authorities and no decision has been taken on it so far. The learned D. A. Concluded by submitting that the grievance of the appellant that no notice was issued to him for such cancellation was not justified as no notice was necessary.
6. I have given anxious thought to the claims of 'the parties and after perusing the law laid down in this behalf in Raja Muhammad Nawaz case and Muhammad Ayub Khan v. IGP (1) 1 am fully convinced that the claim of the appellant cannot be turned down. In Raja Muhammad Nawaz's case the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that once a person is given some status, vide a valid notification and the same is implemented the said right cannot be taken away under the said rules of Locus poenitentiae Animus Revenue. Similarly the case of Muhammad Ayub Khan v. I G P is absolutely at par with the case of the appellant. In this case we have laid down in unequivocal manner that once a person has been confirmed by the competent authority and the same has been fully implemented it would not be possible to cancel the same only because certain people were un happy over it or such action had caused any heart burning among them. This rule was laid down in the case of Muhammad Ayub Khan v. L-G. P, of Police Lahore and others, s6 mentioned earlier by full bench of this Tribunal when it was found that Muhammad Ayub Khan was confirmed in view of his meritorious services as Inspector of Police and the same was implemented by the Department. Subsequently this confirmation was withdrawn on a plea that he was too junior and should have not been confirmed under the rules. This Tribunal laid down that confirmation on account of meritorious performance irrespective of rules was not without precedence and was not also legally barred. Under these circumstances the deconfirmation order was set aside. In Sind reliance was placed on Punjab Police Rules 1934. Similarly as mentioned by us in the earlier part of my judgment {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1980 P L (C S),493 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' the view has been fully confirmed by their lordship of the Supreme Court in Raja Muhammad Nawaz's case so cited above.
7. In the light of above discussions we proceed to set aside the order of the deconfirmation as being without legal authority and direct that the appellant will be for all puposes a confirmed P I from the date said confirmation was bestowed upon him by the competent authority. The, appeal is accepted.