1992 PLP 1136 (SCMR)
Malak MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1136 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | Malak MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1136 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1136 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1136 (SCMR) (Malak MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Faizanul Haque, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th September, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sindh Service Tribunal in Appeal No.23 of 1991, dated 28‑4‑1991). (a) Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1983‑‑ ‑‑‑‑R.13(h)‑‑‑Order of reversion of civil servant‑‑‑Only one appeal could be filed against the original order and order of Appellate Authority would be final‑‑‑Civil servant's further appeal before the higher departmental Authority was not competent. (b) Civil service‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Reversion of civil servant‑‑‑Civil servant's departmental appeal having been rejected he filed further appeal which was not warranted by law‑‑‑Civil servant's appeal before Service Tribunal was dismissed as time‑barred. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.14‑‑‑Exclusion of time from computation.of period of limitation‑‑‑Time spent in filing further appeal before higher Departmental Authority being not warranted by law, time spent in filing and prosecuting such appeal could not be taken into consideration in computing the period of limitation.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Civil service‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Reversion of civil servant‑‑‑Civil servant's departmental appeal having been rejected he filed further appeal which was not warranted by law‑‑‑Civil servant's appeal before Service Tribunal was dismissed as time‑barred. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.14‑‑‑Exclusion of time from computation.of period of limitation‑‑‑Time spent in filing further appeal before higher Departmental Authority being not warranted by law, time spent in filing and prosecuting such appeal could not be taken into consideration in computing the period of limitation. Faizanul Haque, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th September, 1991. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Servicr. Tribunal before which' he had called in question the order of his reversion from the post of S.I.P. to that of A.S.I. This reversion order was passed in departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner to whom show‑cause notice had been issued and allegations of general complaints of corruption and inefficiency were made against him. After he had submitted his reply and fully heard, by order, dated 18‑4‑1990, the S.P. Thatta passed order of his reversion. The appeal filed against this order to D.I.G.P. was rejected on 26‑11‑1990. Thereafter the petitioner approached I.G.P. who by his letter, dated 5‑3‑1991 informed the petitioner that as provided by Rule 13(b) of Sindh Police (E&D) ‑ Rules, 1983 only one appeal can be filed from the original order and the order of the Appellate Authority was final. The petitioner then filed appeal before the Service Tribunal. on 26‑3‑1991. The petition was held to be time‑barred and was dismissed.
2. As according to Rules only one appeal is provided the petitioner should have filed appeal before the Tribunal after the order, dated 5‑3‑1991 had been passed. The time spent in filing appeal or representation before Inspector‑General of Police cannot be taken into consideration in computing the period of limitation. We, therefore, refuse to grant leave. M.BA./M‑1594/S Leave refused.