2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD YAHYA Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAHYA Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD YAHYA Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th July, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 21-7-2001 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in C.M. No.704 of 2001 in Appeal No.3432 of 1997).
S.4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Appeal dismissed in default-- Restoration of
Unexplained delay of three years
Appeal before Service Tribunal was dismissed on 29-9-1998, and application for restoration of the appeal was filed on 28-6-2001
Plea raised by the civil servant was that he came to know about the dismissal of the appeal on 2-11-1998, when he came there to appear before the Tribunal
When the civil servant came to know about the dismissal of the appeal he would have tiled the application for restoration immediately after 2-11-1998 but instead he filed the application after the delay of three ;ears without any application for condonation of delay and without showing any justifiable ground for filing the application after such delay
Service Tribunal had rightly declined to restore the appeal
Leave to appeal was refused. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 21-7-2001 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby C.M. No.704 of 2001 for restoration of his Appeal No.3432 of 1997, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined Police Service as a Constable on 8-8-1990 at District Pakpattan. He undertook police training and while appearing in the examination, he allegedly used unfair means, as such, notice was issued to him to show-cause as to why he should not be discharged from service. In reply to the notice he stated that the copying material was thrown by somebody near him and he was not copying from the same. He was discharged from service by the Superintendent of Police Pakpattan vide his order dated 25-5-1991. He challenged the said order through Appeal No.3432 of 1997 which was dismissed in default on 29-9-1998. He preferred an application for restoration of the appeal on 28-6-2001 i.e. after the delay of 3 years which was also dismissed vide order dated 21-7-2001, impugned herein.
3. The petitioner appearing in person contended that the appeal was adjourned to 2-11-1998 but the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29-9-1998 without any notice to him.
4. We have heard the petitioner and have perused the record of the case. The contention of the petitioner that he came to the Tribunal on 2-11-1998 to pursue his appeal but he was informed that it has been dismissed on 29-9-1998 in default, has no substance. Had it been so, the petitioner would have filed the application for restoration immediately after 2-11-1998 but instead, he filed the application after the delay of 3 years without any application for condonation of delay and without showing any justifiable ground for filing the application after such an inordinate delay.
5. In the circumstances, we find no legal error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and leave refused. M.H./M-639/S Petition dismissed.