MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).-Abdul Majid, A.S.I. No. 157-S of Police Lines, Faisalabad has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Inspector---General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and the Deputy Inspector-General Police Sargodha Range, Sargodha as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order dated 27-5-1980 whereby respondent No. 2 had removed him from probation be set aside and he be confirmed as Sub---Inspector since 31-5-1980.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as a Constable on 1-5-1961. However, on 18-9-1966 he was appointed as a temporary A.S.I. By way of initial recruitment and was confirmed as such vide order dated 5-12-1972. He was promoted as Officiating Sub-Inspector .On purely temporary basis subject to his reversion at any time without notice vide order dated 1-9- 1973 passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police. He was placed on probation as a Sub- Inspector for a period of two years w.e.f. 1-6-1978 vide order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha. However, the Deputy Inspector General of Police respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 27-5-1980 removed him from probation with immediate effect, which order is impugned in this appeal. According to the appellant he submitted a representation against the impugned order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and requested for his confirmation from the date of the completion of the probation period but it was not disposed of. He filed more representations on 16-8-1980, 23-12-1981 and 26-4-1982 but the respondents did not care to reply.
Hence this appeal.
3. We heave heard the parties. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has been removed from probation due to mis-understanding. He has submitted that in the year 1980 an Enquiry regarding suicidal death of an under trial accused involved in a case for an offence under section 457/380, P.P.C. Was instituted against him and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City, Faisalabad was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The said Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 11-5-1980 had exonerated him. However, this report was not put up to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, who believing that the appellant was facing an enquiry, ordered his removal from probation. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has controverted these argu--ments and raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is lawfully barred by time. He has submitted that according to the appellant himself the original order of the removal of his name from probation was passed on 27-5-1980, while the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal on 8-7-1982. He has further submitted that according to the record, of the Department, the representations Annexures `B', `C' and `D' were not pending with the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and even if these are presumed to be still pending with the Deputy Inspector-General of Police for disposal without any final order having been passed upon them, even then the appeal would be barred by time, on the principle enunci--ated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case quoted as Haji Qadir Bakhsh v. Government of Sind etc. (1) On merits it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that the appellant was placed on probation as Sub-Inspector w.e.f. 1-6-1978 and was removed from the same due to his poor performance in the discharge of his official duties as an Investi--gating Officer vide order dated 27-5-1980, before the expiry of the proba--tion period, in accordance with the law. It has further been submitted that now the position of the appellant has become more worse because he has also been reverted from the rank of Officiating Sub-Inspector to that of A.S.I. w.e.f. 23-7-1980 on account of his unsatisfactory work and his representation against the said order has also been rejected by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police vide his order dated 13-10-1981. Thus it has been submitted that when the appellant is no longer Officiating Sub---Inspector he cannot be confirmed in the same rank. '
4. We have given our anxious considerations to the argument of the parties and have also perused record of the case carefully. First of all we would advert to the plea of limitation so raised on behalf of the respondents. The record shows that the impugned order was passed on 27-5-1980 and the appellant submitted his first representation on 14-61980 which was followed by representations dated 16-8-1980, 23-12-1981 and 26-4-1982. It has been conceded on behalf of the appellant that Deputy Inspector-General of Police has not passed any order what--soever on these representations and that the appellant has filed the present appeal on 8-7-1982 without awaiting for the final order. As such while relying on the judgment of Haji Qadir Bakhsh, we hold that the appeal is barred by time and 4s liable to be dismissed on this score alone. However, in the interest of justice we have decided to dispose of this appeal on merits as well. The settled laws that a person appointed on probation is liable to be reverted to a substantive rank during the initial or extended period of his probation without any notice if his work and performance is found to be unsatisfactory. We have reiterated this view in the cases of Mehmood Nawaz, A.S.I. And Syed Maazzam Ali Shah v. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore. We have examined the record and have satisfied ourselves that the performance of the appellant during the period of probation was not up to the mark in as much as the appellant had to face Enquiry due to misconduct, which ultimately resulted in the forfeiture of two years approved service vide S. P's order dated 22-7-1980.
Thus the impugned order is a well-considered order and no exception can be taken to it. The record shows that besides his removal from probation, the appellant was reverted to his substantive rank of A. S. I. Due to his unsatisfactory work vide order dated 23-7-1980 and his representation had also been rejected by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police vide order dated 13-10-1981, which has since attained finality. Since the appellant is no longer holding the rank of Sub-Inspector so the question of his confirmation as a Sub-Inspector does not arise.
3. In view of the above analysis we hold that there is no force in this appeal which is dismissed on merits as well as being barred by time. There will be no order as to costs.