1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ABDUL LATIF Versus I.‑G. OF POLICE and 2 others
| Citation | 1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman, Mazhar Muneer and S. Hafizur Rehman, Members |
| Parties | ABDUL LATIF Versus I.‑G. OF POLICE and 2 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman, Mazhar Muneer and S. Hafizur Rehman, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ABDUL LATIF Versus I.‑G. OF POLICE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil service‑‑ ‑‑‑ Disciplinary action‑‑Criminal trial‑‑Both can be held on same charges. (b) Civil service‑‑ ‑‑Dismissal for misconduct without giving personal hearing‑‑Illegal.
Judgment & Decree
M. SALEEM CHADHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑‑Abdul Latif, Constable, has moved the Tribunal against the order, dated 10‑9‑1977 passed by the S.P., Sahiwal dismissing him from service. His appeal to the D.I.S Multan was rejected by the D.I.‑G. on 10‑2‑1977. His review petition before the I, of Police was rejected on 1‑8‑1979.
2. The main contention of the appellant is that neither he was issued a show‑cause notice by the D.I.‑G. and nor was heard by the D.I.‑G. or the I.‑G. However, he had been falsely implicated in criminal cases in which he has been acquitted. He contends that he cannot be tried both judicially and departmentally on the same charges. We have heard both the parties. There is no bar against an official being tried both judicially and departmentally on the same charges. On going through the orders of the S.P. and D.I.‑G., it is noticed that the appellant' was not given a personal hearing by both of them. Gross irregularity has, therefore, been committed in the departmental proceedings. The appeal is accepted and the order of dismissal is, therefore, set aside. A.E. Appeal allowed.