2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SPECIAL BRANCH, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others
| Citation | 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal, Falak Sher and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SPECIAL BRANCH, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal, Falak Sher and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SPECIAL BRANCH, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st March, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 12‑6‑2000 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Appeal No. 696/93). Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑R.6‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Malice and animosity, plea of‑‑‑Wilful absence amounting to misconduct‑‑‑Question of fact‑‑‑Civil servant was dismissed from service on the charge of misconduct‑‑‑Departmental appeal as well as appeal before Service Tribunal were dismissed‑‑‑Plea raised by the civil servant was that his dismissal from service was because of malice and animosity, as he refused to hand, over official motor cycle to the son of Deputy Inspector General Police‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant failed to substantiate the plea of malice or enmity by leading any evidence which otherwise did not appeal to logic and reason‑‑‑How a son of Deputy Inspector General Police having plenty of conveyance at his exclusive disposal could make such a demand from the civil servant‑‑‑Service record of the civil servant was highly depressive and his performance was never assessed satisfactory and upto the mark‑‑‑Civil servant remained absent on 27 different occasions for 59 days and also earned 12 bad entries during his service of short tenure‑‑‑Wilful absence amounting to misconduct being question of fact had rightly been determined by the department duly affirmed by Service Tribunal and the same did not warrant any interference by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑‑Pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1975 on account of wilful absence amounting to misconduct the petitioner was dismissed from service. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred before the D.I.G. Police which was rejected and revision petition was also dismissed by the I.G. Police. The petitioner approached the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore by way of appeal which has been dismissed vide judgment impugned, hence this petition.
2. Heard the petitioner at length who mainly contended that he was dismissed from service due to malice and animosity as he had refused to hand over the official motorcycle to Mr. Aftab Chauhan son of Deputy Inspector General of Police. He however, could not substantiate the plea of malice or enmity by leading any evidence which otherwise does not appeal to logic and reason. How a son of D.I.G. Police having plenty of conveyance at the exclusive disposal could make such a demand from the petitioner. The service record of the petitioner is highly depressive and his performance was never assessed satisfactory and upto the mark. The petitioner remained absent on 27 different occasions for 59 days and also earned 12 bad entries during his service of short tenure. The wilful absence amounting to misconduct being question of fact has rightly been determined by the department duly affirmed by learned Service Tribunal hardly warrants any interference. The petition being devoid of merit is, rejected and leave refused. M.H./M‑81/S Petition dismissed.