1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD PARVEZ Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and others
| Citation | 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD PARVEZ Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and others |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD PARVEZ Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Sarfraz‑ul‑Hassan for Petitioner.
- Rana Muhammad Arif, Additional Advocate‑General for Respondents.
- 2. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate‑General argued that the petitioner has a right of appeal and thereafter, he could also maintain a revision and finally appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, therefore, this petition is not competent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Demotion‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Civil servant who was demoted by order of Competent Authority, had challenged his demotion in appeal before Deputy Inspector‑General of Police through Senior Superintendent of Police‑‑‑Senior Superintendent of Police through whom appeal was filed by civil servant, illegally and mala fide blocked appeal of civil servant and did not forward same to Deputy Inspector‑General of Police who was Appellate Authority and consigned appeal to record illegally‑‑‑Civil servant in his Constitutional petition had challenged order of Senior Superintendent of Police‑‑‑Constitutional petition filed by civil servant was resisted on ground that same was not competent because civil servant who had a right of appeal and; thereafter, a revision, could file appeal before Service Tribunal‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Senior Superintendent of Police, who was not Appellate Authority, could not adjudicate whether appeal filed by civil servant before Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, was competent or not‑‑‑Senior Superintendent of Police, through whom appeal was filed by civil servant, was under statutory duty to forward appeal to Deputy Inspector‑General of Police to whom appeal of civil servant was addressed‑‑‑High Court accepting Constitutional petition with costs, directed Senior Superintendent of Police to forward appeal of civil servant to Deputy Inspector‑General of Police before a specified date.
Judgment & Decree
Rana Muhammad Arif, Additional Advocate‑General for Respondents. It is argued that the petitioner challenged the illegal, mala fide and arbitrary order ‑of reversion through an appeal though addressed to the D.I.‑G. but routed through the respondent. The grievance is that the respondent illegally and mala fide blocked the appeal and did not forward it to the D.I.‑G.
2. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate‑General argued that the petitioner has a right of appeal and thereafter, he could also maintain a revision and finally appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, therefore, this petition is not competent.
3. The learned counsel while summing up the arguments referred to Para.2 of the comments of the respondent, according to which reversion to substantive rank from an officiating rank is hot punishment, therefore, appeal is not competent.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. The admitted position is that the impugned, order was passed by the respondent and he is not appellate Authority, therefore, he could not adjudicate whether appeal against it is competent or not. He was under statutory duty to forward the same to the D.I.‑G. to whom appeal of the petitioner was addressed.
5. This type of arbitrary and illegal orders over‑burden this Court with unnecessary and fruitless litigation in the form of Constitutional petitions. The senior officers should avoid whimsical and arbitrary orders.
6. The upshot of this discussion is that this petition is accepted with Rs.1,000 as costs. The same shall be recovered Rs.100 each month from the salary of the respondent by the Accountant‑General Office and deposited in the relevant head of the Treasury. The result is that the respondent is directed to forward the appeal of the petitioner to the D.I.‑G. before 13th of March, 1999. H.B.T./M‑998/L Petition accepted.