1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
BAQAR ALI Versus ERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SUKKUR and 3 others
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Munawar Ali Khan, chairman, |
| Parties | BAQAR ALI Versus ERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SUKKUR and 3 others |
| Primary Law | (c) Sindh Service Tribunals Act (I of 1973), (a) Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988, (b) Police Rules, 1934 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Sindh Service Tribunals Act (I of 1973), (a) Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988, (b) Police Rules, 1934 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,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (BAQAR ALI Versus ERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SUKKUR and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mumtaz Ali Siddiqui for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 18th November, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
R.6 (6)
Recommendations of Enquiry Officer with regard to nature and quantum of punishment were not binding on the punishing authority even if there was no bar on his making recommendations with regard to penalty.
R.16.19
Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988, R.6(6)-- Proceedings initiated against police official under R.16.19, Police Rules, 1934 while penalty was awarded under R.6(6), Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988
Punishment awarded to police official was not rendered illegal and inoperative only because correct rule under which it was required to be imposed was not mentioned in the order of punishment, especially when punishment of dismissal could have been awarded under R.16, Police Rules, 1934, as also under R.6(6), Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988.
S. 4
Appeal against dismissal from service riled after lapse of more than three years being time-barred was not competent
Police official instead of filing departmental appeal against his dismissal took the matter to High Court where his appeal was dismissed being not maintainable
Police official filed his departmental appeal, thereafter and then came to Service Tribunal, after waiting for more than two and a half years
Appeal was dismissed being time barred. Hayat Qureshi for the official Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
R.6 (6)
Recommendations of Enquiry Officer with regard to nature and quantum of punishment were not binding on the punishing authority even if there was no bar on his making recommendations with regard to penalty. (b) Police Rules, 1934
R.16.19
Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988, R.6(6)-- Proceedings initiated against police official under R.16.19, Police Rules, 1934 while penalty was awarded under R.6(6), Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988
Punishment awarded to police official was not rendered illegal and inoperative only because correct rule under which it was required to be imposed was not mentioned in the order of punishment, especially when punishment of dismissal could have been awarded under R.16, Police Rules, 1934, as also under R.6(6), Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988. (c) Sindh Service Tribunals Act (I of 1973)
S. 4
Appeal against dismissal from service riled after lapse of more than three years being time-barred was not competent
Police official instead of filing departmental appeal against his dismissal took the matter to High Court where his appeal was dismissed being not maintainable
Police official filed his departmental appeal, thereafter and then came to Service Tribunal, after waiting for more than two and a half years
Appeal was dismissed being time barred. Mumtaz Ali Siddiqui for Appellant. Hayat Qureshi for the official Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th November, 1991.