1989SCMR964 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus S.P. CITY DIVISION, LAHORE and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR964 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleenm, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Usman Ali Shah and Naimuddin, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus S.P. CITY DIVISION, LAHORE and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR964 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR964 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleenm, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Usman Ali Shah and Naimuddin, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR964 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus S.P. CITY DIVISION, LAHORE and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1988.
- S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 22-10-1985 in Civil Appeal No.911/1221 of 1984).
S.4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)--Re-instatement--Service Tribunal while setting aside order of dismissal of petitioner and ordering his reinstatement directed that period during which petitioner remained out of service should be treated as extraordinary leave without pay--Tribunal passed said order in exercise of its discretionary powers--Petitioner while challenging said orders offered no valid ground for interference nor pointed out any violation of any rule or provision of law--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
NAIMUDDIN, J.‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the Tribunal dated 22nd October, 1985. He was a police constable. A case was registered against him along with Muhammad Malak, under section 448, P.P.C., at Police Station Factory Area, Lahore. A show‑cause notice was also served on him on 11th April, 1981, by the Superintendent Police City Division, Lahore. Finding his reply unsatisfactory, the Superintendent of Police dismissed him from service vide his order, dated 22nd April, 1981. He and Muhammad Malak made a joint appeal to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore but he rejected the same by the order, dated 5th July, 1981. His review petition to the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, also failed, therefore, he took the matter to the Service Tribunal and succeeded there. While setting aside the orders appealed from, the Tribunal directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service from the date of his dismissal. The Tribunal, however, directed that the period for which the petitioner remained out of service shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. It is this part of the order with which the petitioner feels aggrieved. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Tribunal by ordering that the period for which the petitioner remained out of service shall be A treated as extraordinary leave without pay, has exercised its discretionary powers and no valid ground has been urged for our interference with the exercise of such powers nor violation of any rule or provisions of law has been pointed out. We, therefore, find no merits in this petition and accordingly dismiss it. B M.Y.H./M‑759/S Leave refused.