1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ALI AKBAR Versus D.I.-G. P., COMMANDANT, SINDH RESERVE POLICE, KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Munawar Ali Khan, Chairman and Ghulam Mujaddid Isran, Member |
| Parties | ALI AKBAR Versus D.I.-G. P., COMMANDANT, SINDH RESERVE POLICE, KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil service, (d) Police Rules, 1934, (a) Police Rules, 1934 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil service, (d) Police Rules, 1934, (a) Police Rules, 1934, (c) Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Munawar Ali Khan, Chairman and Ghulam Mujaddid Isran, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ALI AKBAR Versus D.I.-G. P., COMMANDANT, SINDH RESERVE POLICE, KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Sattar Mughal for Appellant.
- Habib Rasheed for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th May, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 12.21
Sindh Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1988, R. 2(v)-- Discharge of police constable, could be made under R. 12.21, Police Rules, 1934 when he was unlikely to prove as "efficient police officer", but not in case when a constable was discharged on ground that he was not likely to become "good police officer"
There being marked difference between the words "efficient police officer" and "good police officer", it could not be said that order of discharge passed against constable was covered by the said Rule-- Constable having been discharged with stigma of having remained absent unauthorisedly he was entitled to show-cause notice
Unauthorised absence being prejudicial to good order or discipline in police force amounted to "misconduct" thus formal disciplinary action should have been taken against constable.
Before coming to Tribunal in appeal, appellant was required to fulfil mandatory provisions of exhausting departmental remedies.
Departmental remedy
Civil servant before coming to Tribunal in appeal was required to fulfil - mandatory provisions of exhausting departmental remedy.
R. 12.21
Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973), S. 23(2)
Discharge from service of a police constable
Right to
Order of civil servant's discharge owing to his unauthorised absence, otherwise not falling, within precincts of Rule 12.21 of Police Rules, 1934
Appeal, even if, was barred under Rule 12.21 yet civil servant being Constable in police department, was within his right to resort to making representation to next higher Authority within thirty days of the impugned order as envisaged under section 23(2) of Act (XIV of 1973).
Judgment & Decree
(b) Civil service
Before coming to Tribunal in appeal, appellant was required to fulfil mandatory provisions of exhausting departmental remedies. (c) Civil service
Departmental remedy
Civil servant before coming to Tribunal in appeal was required to fulfil - mandatory provisions of exhausting departmental remedy. (d) Police Rules, 1934
R. 12.21
Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973), S. 23(2)
Discharge from service of a police constable
Right to
Order of civil servant's discharge owing to his unauthorised absence, otherwise not falling, within precincts of Rule 12.21 of Police Rules, 1934
Appeal, even if, was barred under Rule 12.21 yet civil servant being Constable in police department, was within his right to resort to making representation to next higher Authority within thirty days of the impugned order as envisaged under section 23(2) of Act (XIV of 1973). Abdul Sattar Mughal for Appellant. Habib Rasheed for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th May, 1991.