1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUNEER AHMAD SIDDIQUI Versus THE PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS
| Citation | 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman, Mazhar Munir and S. Hafeez‑ur Rehman, Members |
| Parties | MUNEER AHMAD SIDDIQUI Versus THE PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman, Mazhar Munir and S. Hafeez‑ur Rehman, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUNEER AHMAD SIDDIQUI Versus THE PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 4 read with Martial Law Order, 1977 [C. M. L. A.'s] No. 23 Review under M. L. O. 23 availing of‑No formal/writer withdrawal of appeal pending before Tribunal‑Effect‑Appeal deemed to have been withdrawn‑Availing of remedy of review, held, disentitles appellant to continue with pending appeal.
Judgment & Decree
M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑In this appeal the appellant has also availed of the remedy prescribed under M.L.O. 23, which provides as under:‑ "3. (2) A person referred to in sub‑paragraph (1) whose appeal or petition against compulsory removal from service is, on the date of coming into force of this Martial Law Order, pending in a Court or with a Service Tribunal, may submit a Review Petition under that sub‑paragraph only after he has withdrawn his appeal or petition from the Court or Service Tribunal, as the case may be. The appellant, however, claims that he did not withdraw his appeal, in writing, therefore, notwithstanding the fact that he availed remedy under M. L. O. 23 vide Review Petition he is entitled to continue the present appeal, He thus pressed to have his appeal decided on merits. After hearing the appellant, we are afraid, we are unable to accept the contention of the appel lant. In the first instance, the provisions of M. L. O. 23 did not contemplate withdrawal in writing. Even the conduct of the appellant in pressing the Review Petition in the face of the above express provision is tantamount to withdrawal of his appeal pending before this Tribunal. We are inclined to hold that there was a clear choice either to resort to remedy prescribed under M. L. O. No. 23, or to continue with the proceedings already instituted by the petitioner before other forums. The fact that the present appellant filed a Review Petition and pressed the same to its logical conclusion in our opinion is sufficient to disentitle the appellant to continue with this appeal. In our view the conclusion is inescapable that the appellant should be deemed to have withdrawn his appeal. In this view of the matter, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn and is accordingly rejected. Appeal rejected.