1989 PLP 2027 (SCMR)
SULTAN SAKANDAR Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MIANWALI and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2027 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | SULTAN SAKANDAR Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MIANWALI and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2027 (SCMR)?
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 1989 PLP 2027 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2027 (SCMR) (SULTAN SAKANDAR Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MIANWALI and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Azam Rasul, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 5‑8‑1981 in Appeal No. 202/672 of 1980). ‑‑‑S.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212 (3)‑‑Two orders were passed by the Authority against petitioners‑‑Petitioners appealed against both the orders before Service Tribunal‑‑Service Tribunal declaring order of petitioner's reduction in rank, without lawful authority, as it did not comply with the procedure laid down in the Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules but dismissing his appeal against the other order‑‑Tribunal had not acted contrary to law or any of the rules applicable to the case of the petitioner‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Sultan Sakandar, A.S.I. No.314 Mianwali now H. C. No. 20, Police Station Bhakkar, District Mianwali, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 5‑8‑1981. The petitioner had filed two appeals before the Tribunal in which he impugned the orders dated 6‑12‑1979 and 24‑1‑1980 of the S.P. Mianwali. Both the appeals were decided by means of the impugned order. The Tribunal after discussing the merits came to the conclusion that the order dated 6‑12‑1979 was legal and called for no interference. But with regard to order dated 24‑1‑1980 whereby the petitioner was reduced from the rank of H. C. to that of F. C., the finding of the Tribunal was that this order was without lawful authority as it did not comply with the procedure laid down in the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. To that extent the appeal was accepted. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. We don't think the Tribunal in passing the impugned order acted contrary to law or any of the rules applicable to the case of the petitioner. As the impugned order is in accordance with law, therefore, we decline to grant leave to appeal. Dismissed. M.A.K./S‑409/S. Leave refused.