1989 PLP 1226 (SCMR)
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus AZMAT ALI ‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1226 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus AZMAT ALI ‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1226 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1226 (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 1226 (SCMR) (SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus AZMAT ALI ‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 14‑9‑1981 in Appeal No.697/905 of 1980). ‑‑‑ Misconduct‑‑Civil servant was tried by summary Military Court‑‑Order of his conviction had not been countersigned by Deputy Martial Law Administrator‑ Non‑signing of order of conviction by Deputy Martial Law Administrator would amount to setting aside of order of conviction‑‑Civil servant, thus, was not guilty of misconduct.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad; Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha and Inspector- General of Police. Punjab, have filed this petition for leave to appeal against 'the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 14‑9‑1981. The Tribunal by means of the impugned judgment directed that the respondent be reinstated but as his conduct was not entirely unblemished he shall not be eligible for any financial benefits for the period he remained out of service. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the respondent was found guilty of misconduct, hence the judgment of the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. This contention has no force because of the following observation in the impugned judgment which the learned counsel was unable to meet:‑ "...We have also taken note of the order of the Superintendent of Police which is based on the order of conviction passed by the Summary Military Court. When the order of conviction had not been countersigned by the D.M.L.A. it amounted to setting aside the said order." We are, therefore, of the view that the petition has no merits. It is dismissed accordingly. M.BA./S‑275/S Petition dismissed.