1990 PLP 937 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 937 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 937 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 937 (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: 1990 PLP 937 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. Abul Aasim Jafery, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
S. Abul Aasim Jafery, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31st July, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his dismissal from service was dismissed. 2. The petitioner was serving as Constable in the C.I.A. Staff, Rawalpindi On the allegation that he had released some bad characters after receiving illegal gratifications, the Superintendent of Police issued him a show cause. He submitted a written reply. After considering his reply and hearing him in person the said officer dismissed him from service. He preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector‑General which was dismissed. He filed a second appeal before the Inspector‑General. It was filed as incompetent. He then preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. It was dismissed as barred by time. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court. 3. It is not disputed that if the date of order of the Deputy Inspector General is taken as the starling point for limitation, the petitioner's appeal before the Tribunal was out of time. The case of the petitioner is that under Rule 12(1) the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, the Inspector‑General was competent to revise the orders of the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector‑General. That being so, the learned Tribunal should have condoned the delay after giving him credit for the time he had spent in pursuing his second appeal before the Inspector‑General. 4. It is to be noticed that Rule 14, the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, provide for only one appeal against an order of dismissal or removal from service and the decision on the appeal is final. That being the position, the time for filing the appeal before the Tribunal started running against the petitioner as soon as the order of the Deputy Inspector‑General was communicated to him. The mere fact that the Inspector‑General could revise the order of the appellate authority furnished no justification to the petitioner for waiting till his second appeal was disposed of. In the circumstances, the refusal of the learned Tribunal in not condoning the delay cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity. Leave to appeal is refused. A.A./M‑1141/S Leave refused.