RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN):----This is an appeal against the order of Central Police Office dated 8-8-1993 whereby the order of promotion of appellant issued under Order Book No. 15, dated 1-8-1993 was withdrawn.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined Police Force on 28-9-1974 and was deputed to undergo departmental training at Shahdad Pur. He completed his training with credit.
On the recommendations of the Chairman, District Council the case of promotion of appellant to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector was considered and ultimately vide Order Book No. 151/CPO, dated 1-8-1993 the appellant was promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector and was adjusted in District Mirpur against a vacant post. The said order was withdrawn by the Inspector-General of Police vide the impugned order.
3. The respondent has filed his written objections controverting the facts stated in the memorandum of appeal. In his replication appellant has reiterated his claim as stated in his appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
5. The first attack of the learned counsel for the appellant on the impugned order is that the appellant had joined his place of duty in the District of Mirpur after the order of promotion. This order had thus been implemented and it could not be revoked without giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard and order being unconditional and having been acted upon was liable to be kept in operation under the provisions of section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897. By virtue of the section 21 of General Clauses Act the authority which has the power to pass an order is authorised to amend, add or rescind the same but the power of receding is available till decisive step is taken. The arguments of the learned counsel could hold the field if the order was absolute or unconditional in nature. While going through the first order we notice that the order of accelerated promotion was temporary/probationary. It is now a settled law that an order of a probationer can be withdrawn without specifying any reason at the will of the authority which had passed the original order. It is not necessary for the authority to provide the concerned civil servant an opportunity of explaining his position. The appellant was a probationer and his appointment could be terminated during the period of probation without assigning any reason by the Inspector- General of Police. We, therefore, repel this contention.
6. The next point raised by the counsel for appellant is that the impugned order was passed without the sanction of the Inspector-General of Police and therefore, the order having been passed without the approval of the competent authority is not tenable in the eyes of law.
7. We have ascertained the facts from the relevant file concerning the impugned order. The then Inspector-General of Police in para. 3 of the file noted his opinion as under:--
8. Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police in para. 4 and the then Deputy Inspector-General of Police in paras. 7 to 9 have expressed their opinion to the effect that reasonable grounds exist which warrant accelerated promotion of appellant. Inspector-General of Police agreed to the proposal of Deputy Inspector-General of Police and approved the out of turn promotion of appellant. The case again came under the consideration of the department and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police expressed his opinion in pares. 11/N as under:- "11. With reference to P.U.C. At page 6/8 it is submitted that the Serial 1 to 10 of noting side indicates that the case was directly dealt with by the Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector-General of Police (Retired) and the worthy Inspector --General Police gave sanction to this promotion on 12-7-1993. However, there are no such rules where under special promotion can be given as is also submitted by the outgoing Inspector-General of Police vide para. 3 of the noting side. The promotion is illegal and worth consideration for cancellation."
9. The Inspector-General of Police while accepting the above proposal ordered as under:-- "I agree with the previous decision of my predecessor at pares 3/N. That must be upheld---
10. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police vide para. 11/N has proposed that the special promotion given to the appellant is legal and worth consideration for cancellation. The Inspector-General of Police has accepted this proposal and had referred the opinion of former Inspector-General of Police where he had declared that out of turn promotion could not be given. The Inspector-General of Police was of the opinion that the view of former Inspector-General of Police is to be upheld. The proposal of Deputy Inspector General of Police when read with the approval of Inspector-General of Police we have no doubt to assume that the Inspect-General of Police approved the proposal of Deputy Inspector-General of Police for cancellation of the out of turn promotion of appellant. We see no force in this contention of the counsel for appellant.
11. The result is that there is no substance in this appeal which is dismissed with no orders as to costs.