1995 PLP 1027 (SCMR)
WARIS KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus The INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE,
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1027 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ |
| Parties | WARIS KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus The INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE, |
| Primary Law | North‑West Frontier Province Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1027 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: North‑West Frontier Province Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1027 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1027 (SCMR) (WARIS KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus The INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st February, 1995.
- 6. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner leave to appeal is granted to re‑appraise evidence on the record and to consider whether the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was justifiable in law.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 31‑8‑1994 of the Service Tribunal, N.‑W.F.P., Peshawar in Appeal No. 367 of 1993). ‑‑‑‑Rr. 4, 5 & 6‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Misconduct‑‑ Police Officer was found guilty of negligence/inefficiency and was compulsorily retired from service‑‑‑Police Officer's departmental appeal and appeal before Service Tribunal were dismissed‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Contention was raised by Police Officer that evidence on record had been misread by Service Tribunal and penalty imposed was excessive‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to re‑appraise evidence on record and to consider whether penalty imposed upon Police Officer was justifiable in law.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st February, 1995. MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J: ‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against order dated 31‑8‑1994 of the N.‑W:F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, whereby his Service Appeal No.367 of 1993 was dismissed.
2. The petitioner while serving as Inspector of Police (CIA) was proceeded against for making false statement before the Speedy Trial Court in a case F.I.R. No.281 dated 4/5‑5‑1991 registered at Police Station, University Town, Peshawar and thereby defaming a Senior Police Officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector‑General of Police.
3. As a result of the inquiry he was found guilty of negligence/inefficiency and compulsorily retired from service with effect from 10‑8‑1993 by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police. He preferred an appeal before the Inspector‑General of Police, Peshawar, but the same was dismissed on 28‑11‑1993.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the Departmental Authorities he filed appeal before N.‑W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, which was dismissed vide impugned order, referred to above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the evidence on the record had been misread. He relied on A.U. Musarrat v. Government of West Pakistan (PLD 1977 SC 24) to contend that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was far excessive.
6. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner leave to appeal is granted to re‑appraise evidence on the record and to consider whether the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was justifiable in law. A.A./W‑139/S Leave granted,