2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUZAFFAR ALI Versus COMMANDANT RANGERS and another
| Citation | 2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ |
| Parties | MUZAFFAR ALI Versus COMMANDANT RANGERS and another |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUZAFFAR ALI Versus COMMANDANT RANGERS and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Habib-ur-Rehman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Fayyaz Ahmed Sherazi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Arshad, Legal Inspector, Pakistan Rangers for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th December, 2012.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 24-11-2011 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.41(L)CS/2009).
Art. 212(3)
Hawaldar serving in Pakistan Rangers
Effect
Petitioner, who was serving as Hawaldar in Pakistan Rangers remained absent without leave on various dates, including one stretch for a period of 2 years, 11 months and 5 days
Petitioner was proceeded against on charge of misconduct and inquiry proceedings against him culminated in his dismissal from service
Departmental appeal filed by petitioner failed and his appeal before Service Tribunal was also dismissed
Contentions of petitioner were that he was absent on account of unavoidable circumstances; that he was falsely involved in an F.I.R. on account of which his whole family absconded and there was no one who could inform his department, and that he informed his department immediately after his acquittal from the case
No justifiable explanation was provided by the petitioner for his absence for the lengthy period of 2 years, 11 months and 5 days
Even after his acquittal, petitioner did not inform his department for more than a week
Penalty awarded to petitioner was not unwarranted in such circumstances
Petitioner had not raised any question of public importance in terms of Art.212(3) of the Constitution to warrant interference
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner while serving as Hawaldar in Pakistan Rangers was proceeded against on charges of misconduct with the allegation that he remained absent without leave on various dates and in one stretch for a period of 2 years 11 months and 5 days. The inquiry proceedings culminated in the award of major penalty of dismissal from service, his departmental appeal failed and appeal before the Service Tribunal was also dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was absent on account of unavoidable circumstances; that he was falsely involved in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.396 dated 30-5-2004 under section 324/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Ghulam Muhammadabad, Faisalabad, that on account of the said case petitioner's entire family absconded; that there was nobody who could inform the department and therefore, he informed the department immediately after his acquittal on 23-6-2007.
3. Mr. Muhammad Arshad, Inspector Legal, defends the impugned judgment and submits that a regular inquiry was conducted; that petitioner was given personal hearing by the Director-General Rangers and that his absence without leave for such a long time was a serious act of misconduct, which could not be countenanced in a disciplined force like Pakistan Rangers.
4. Having heard petitioner's learned counsel and Inspector Legal and having gone through the impugned judgment, we find that there is absolutely no justifiable explanation for his absence for the afore-referred long period of 2 years 11 months and 5 days. Even after his acquittal, he did not inform the department for more than a week. The penalty awarded has not been found by us to be unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of this case. Petitioner's learned counsel has not raised any question of law of public importance in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution to warrant interference. The petition lacking in merit is accordingly dismissed. MWA/M-2/SC Petition dismissed.