1990 PLP 1442 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1442 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1442 (SCMR)?
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 1990 PLP 1442 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1442 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Yusuf Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 8‑7‑1987 passed in Appeal No. 246 of 1987). ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑ Tribunal had passed a correct order on question of law‑‑‑No further question of law arising which might require examination by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Date, of hearing: 30th July, 1989.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The Petitioner, a civil servant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 8‑7‑1987, whereby his appeal against dismissal from service, was dismissed as time‑'barred.
2. The Petitioner proceeded on five days leave on 1.5‑5‑1984 but returned from leave on 26‑8‑1984. He was issued show‑cause notice but again absented himself from 26‑9‑1984 to 5‑1‑1985 without any leave sanctioned to him. He did not turn up to respond to the show‑cause notice. On such wilful absence, he was dismissed from service on 28‑4‑1985. His appeal to the Departmental Authority also failed. The Petitioner thereafter filed a second appeal and he was informed on 26‑2‑1987 that no such appeal was competent. It was thereafter that he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal and it was held to be time barred and there was no application made for claiming extension in the period of limitation.
3. The Tribunal has passed a correct order on the question of law and no further question of law arises which may require examination in this Court. Leave to appeal, is therefore, refused. H.B.T./M‑1092/S Leave refused.