1990 PLP 1473 (SCMR)
MIAN MUHAMMAD, SUB‑INSPECTOR OF POLICE‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1473 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MIAN MUHAMMAD, SUB‑INSPECTOR OF POLICE‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1473 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1473 (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 1473 (SCMR) (MIAN MUHAMMAD, SUB‑INSPECTOR OF POLICE‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch.Inayatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑ Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 16‑9‑1987 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Appeal No.590 of 1987). ‑‑‑R.14(2)‑‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Petitioner filed second appeal before Inspector‑ General, despite same was not provided after dismissal of first and final one‑‑Petitioner after dismissal of incompetent second appeal, filed appeal before Tribunal which was dismissed on ground of limitation‑‑Petitioner having not approached Tribunal within prescribed time, Tribunal after dismissal of competent first appeal, held, did not commit any error in not excluding time spent by petitioner in incompetent second appeal.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑R.14(2)‑‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Petitioner filed second appeal before Inspector‑ General, despite same was not provided after dismissal of first and final one‑‑Petitioner after dismissal of incompetent second appeal, filed appeal before Tribunal which was dismissed on ground of limitation‑‑Petitioner having not approached Tribunal within prescribed time, Tribunal after dismissal of competent first appeal, held, did not commit any error in not excluding time spent by petitioner in incompetent second appeal. Ch.Inayatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑ Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31st July, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner is a Sub‑Inspector Police. On the allegation that he had been inefficient and negligent in investigating a theft case, the Superintendent of Police served him with a show‑cause notice. He submitted a written statement. He also appeared in person before the Superintendent of Police to explain his position. The Superintendent of Police found his explanation unsatisfactory and directed that his increment be stopped for one year. He preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police which was dismissed. He then filed a second appeal before the Inspector- General which was filed on the ground that there was no provision in the Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules for a second appeal. He then preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. It was dismissed on the ground of limitation. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It is not disputed that after the dismissal of his appeal by the Deputy Inspector‑General, the petitioner did not approach the Tribunal within the prescribed time. It is contended on his behalf that he should be given credit for the time he had spent in preferring the second appeal before the Inspector- General. There is no merit in this contention, for, under rule 14(2), the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, the order in the first appeal of the Deputy Inspector‑General was final and no second appeal lay before the Inspector General. The learned Tribunal did not therefore commit any error in not excluding the time which the petitioner had spent in approaching the Inspector‑General. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1086/S Petition dismissed.