2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
PROVINCE OF SINDH through Advocate‑General, Sindh Versus PETER JOHN KHOKHAR
| Citation | 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, C. J., Ch. Muhammad Arif and Munir A. Sheikh, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF SINDH through Advocate‑General, Sindh Versus PETER JOHN KHOKHAR |
| Primary Law | Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan, C. J., Ch. Muhammad Arif and Munir A. Sheikh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (PROVINCE OF SINDH through Advocate‑General, Sindh Versus PETER JOHN KHOKHAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Suleman Habibullah, Additional Advocate‑General and Akhlaq A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 31st July, 2001.
- PROVINCE OF SINDH through Advocate‑General, Sindh
- ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Police Rules, 1934, R.12.21‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Discharge from service‑‑‑Involvement of civil servant in a criminal case‑‑‑Civil servant was discharged from service on such ground‑‑ During pendency of departmental appeal, civil servant was acquitted by Trial Court, but Departmental Authority dismissed his appeal‑‑‑Civil servant filed appeal before Service Tribunal and submitted that he would not claim back benefits, if his appeal was allowed to the extent of reinstatement in service‑‑ Additional Advocate‑General representing the Department stated no objection to suggested course; whereupon Service Tribunal accepted the appeal in said terms‑‑‑Contention of Department was that instead of allowing the appeal on the basis of concession made by Additional Advocate‑General, the Service Tribunal should have applied its independent mind to the law on the subject and facts of the case, and noted that appeal was barred by time‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Concession made by Additional Advocate‑General on behalf of the Department for reinstatement of civil servant without back benefits was binding on the Department‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with such concession‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- 4. After hearing the learned Additional Advocate‑General for the petitioner‑Government, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment in that the concession trade by the learned A,A.‑G. on behalf of the Government for reinstatement of the respondent without back benefits is binding on the petitioner‑Government.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 22‑5‑2001 of the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi in Appeal No. 91/2000). ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Police Rules, 1934, R.12.21‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Discharge from service‑‑‑Involvement of civil servant in a criminal case‑‑‑Civil servant was discharged from service on such ground‑‑ During pendency of departmental appeal, civil servant was acquitted by Trial Court, but Departmental Authority dismissed his appeal‑‑‑Civil servant filed appeal before Service Tribunal and submitted that he would not claim back benefits, if his appeal was allowed to the extent of reinstatement in service‑‑ Additional Advocate‑General representing the Department stated no objection to suggested course; whereupon Service Tribunal accepted the appeal in said terms‑‑‑Contention of Department was that instead of allowing the appeal on the basis of concession made by Additional Advocate‑General, the Service Tribunal should have applied its independent mind to the law on the subject and facts of the case, and noted that appeal was barred by time‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Concession made by Additional Advocate‑General on behalf of the Department for reinstatement of civil servant without back benefits was binding on the Department‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with such concession‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J.‑‑‑This petition is directed against the judgment dated 22‑5‑2001 passed by the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No. 91 of 2000.
2. Brief facts are that the respondent on 31‑8‑1995 while serving as Constable was involved in Criminal Case No. 169 of 1995 at Police Station Drakhshan, Karachi under section 364, P.P.C. read with section 17(3) of Haraba Ordinance. On 9‑9‑1995, the S.H.O. of Police Station Drakhshan, Karachi submitted 'misconduct report' against the respondent to the S.S.P., District East, Karachi, on the basis whereof the latter discharged the respondent from service on 8‑10‑1995 under Police Rule 12.21. The respondent after exhausting departmental remedy, approached the Tribunal for redress of his grievance. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that during, the pendency of the departmental appeal, he was acquitted by the trial Court on 23‑8‑1999 but the appellate authority had not assigned any reason for rejecting his appeal. He further contended that the ground on which he was discharged from service was no more in existence at the time of passing of final order by the Departmental Authority as he had already been acquitted from the criminal case, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service. During the course of arguments the respondent made a statement that he would be satisfied if the appeal is allowed to the extent of reinstatement into service and would not claim any back benefits. The learned A.A.‑G. appearing on behalf of the Government stated 'no objection' to the suggested course on behalf of the petitioner subject to relinquishment of back benefits. Hence, the appeal was allowed by the Tribunal in the above terms, vide the impugned judgment.
3. It is, inter alia, argued on behalf of the petitioner‑Government that instead of allowing the appeal on the, basis of the concession made by the learned A.A.‑G. the Tribunal should have applied its independent mind to the law on the subject, the facts of tile case and noted that the ,appeal before it was barred by time.
4. After hearing the learned Additional Advocate‑General for the petitioner‑Government, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment in that the concession trade by the learned A,A.‑G. on behalf of the Government for reinstatement of the respondent without back benefits is binding on the petitioner‑Government. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave declined S.A.K./P‑50/S Leave declined.