1977 PLP [C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Versus I.‑G. OF POLICE, SIND AND 2 OTHERs
| Citation | 1977 PLP [C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | 1977 P L C C. S. T. 24 |
| Bench Members | Hamzo Khan M. Kureshi, Chairman, Abdul Kadir and |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Versus I.‑G. OF POLICE, SIND AND 2 OTHERs |
| Primary Law | Sind Service Tribunals Act (XV of 19731 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP [C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Service Tribunals Act (XV of 19731 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP [C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the 1977 P L C C. S. T. 24 bench comprising: Hamzo Khan M. Kureshi, Chairman, Abdul Kadir and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP [C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Versus I.‑G. OF POLICE, SIND AND 2 OTHERs). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑ S. 4‑Retirement on own request Contention that retirement applied for under coercion‑No proof‑Mere verbal statement at belated stage, held, not acceptable and interference rejected. [p. 24)4 Abdul Sattar G. Shaikh for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Versus I.‑G. OF POLICE, SIND AND 2 OTHERs Appeal No. 90 of 1975, decided on 10th March 1976 ‑‑ S. 4‑Retirement on own request Contention that retirement applied for under coercion‑No proof‑Mere verbal statement at belated stage, held, not acceptable and interference rejected. [p. 24)4 Abdul Sattar G. Shaikh for Respondent. HAMZO KHAN M. KURESHI (CHAIRMAN).‑Heard the appellant and A. A.‑G. The appellant had himself made application for retirement on 15‑1‑1914. It was accepted by the S. P., Nawabshah on 12‑1‑
74. The appellant's depart mental appeal was dismissed by the D. I.‑G. on 18‑9‑
74. His review petition to I: G. was dismissed on 1‑5‑
75. He filed the present appeal on 21‑7‑
75. Since he was allowed to retire on his own request, we find no reason to interfere. There is nothing no record, except the word of the appellant for the first time raised before us, that he was coerced by the S. P. to retire from service. We cannot accept his belated and empty word. He had four days left. The S. P. passed the order on his application to withdraw his retirement application but he failed to do so. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with no order for costs.