1991 PLP 348 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 348 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 348 (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 1991 PLP 348 (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: 1991 PLP 348 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Akhtar, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, Abdul Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th July, 1989.
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab, Abdul Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 7-6-1986 passed in Case No. 831/525 of 1985).
S.4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)
Reduction in rank on ground of disobedience/avoidance of compliance of order of superiors
Appeal was barred by 23 days
No explanation having been offered for such delay, there was no sufficient cause for condoning delay
Courts below had recorded finding of fact
Case being of disobedience of orders of superiors in a disciplined force (Police), punishment imposed on petitioner would not call for review in proceedings against him
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner, earlier a Sub‑Inspector of Police was proceeded against departmentally for disobedience/avoidance of the compliance of the order of the superior and was reduced in rank. He appealed to the Tribunal and failed, and now seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
2. The appeal is shown to be barred by 23 days. No explanation is forthcoming to explain this delay. There is, therefore, no sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
3. On merits the learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard and we find that a finding of fact has been recorded. It is a case of disobedience of orders of superiors in a disciplined force and the punishment imposed does not call for review in these proceedings.
4. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. H.B.T./B‑138/S Leave refused.