PLC(CS) 1992

1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MOULA BUX and 2 others Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SUKKUR and 4 others

Jurisdiction / Court
Service Tribunal Sindh
Decided Date
Appeals Nos. 74, 75, 76. of 1991, decided on 27th January, 1992.
Honorable Judges
Munawar Ali Khan, Chairman and A. Rashid Khan Sherwani, Member
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Service Tribunal Sindh
Bench Members Munawar Ali Khan, Chairman and A. Rashid Khan Sherwani, Member
Parties MOULA BUX and 2 others Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SUKKUR and 4 others
Primary Law Sindh Service Tribunals Act (I of 1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Service Tribunals Act (I of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Munawar Ali Khan, Chairman and A. Rashid Khan Sherwani, Member.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MOULA BUX and 2 others Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SUKKUR and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Sindh Service Tribunals Act (I of 1973)

Representation

  • Amanullah Shaikh for Appellants.
  • Zawwar Hussain shah for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 11thJanuary, 1992.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 4

Appeal

Dismissal from service

Departmental appeal filed by civil servant against his dismissal from service having been rejected he filed Constitutional petition before High Court which was subsequently withdrawn

Appeal against dismissal was time-barred

Civil servant's explanation for delay in filing appeal was not convincing

Time wasted in agitating the matter at wrong forum could not be condoned

Civil servant's plea that he had not received order of dismissal was negatived by his own admission that he had received the same on 24-12-1989

Appeal filed by civil servant on 11-7-1991 was thus time-barred and in absence of plausible explanation he was not entitled to condonation of delay

Civil servant, had no case even on merits

High levelled enquiry conducted into the conduct of civil servant charged him with dereliction of duty as also the departmental enquiry pinpointed his grave misconduct

Appeal against dismissal apart from being hopelessly time-barred was also without any merit

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SUKKUR and 4 others Appeals Nos. 74, 75, 76. of 1991, decided on 27th January, 1992.

S. 4

Appeal

Dismissal from service

Departmental appeal filed by civil servant against his dismissal from service having been rejected he filed Constitutional petition before High Court which was subsequently withdrawn

Appeal against dismissal was time-barred

Civil servant's explanation for delay in filing appeal was not convincing

Time wasted in agitating the matter at wrong forum could not be condoned

Civil servant's plea that he had not received order of dismissal was negatived by his own admission that he had received the same on 24-12-1989

Appeal filed by civil servant on 11-7-1991 was thus time-barred and in absence of plausible explanation he was not entitled to condonation of delay

Civil servant, had no case even on merits

High levelled enquiry conducted into the conduct of civil servant charged him with dereliction of duty as also the departmental enquiry pinpointed his grave misconduct

Appeal against dismissal apart from being hopelessly time-barred was also without any merit

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Amanullah Shaikh for Appellants. Zawwar Hussain shah for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11thJanuary, 1992.