2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus S.P. LAHORE and others
| Citation | 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdur Rahman Khan and Qazi Muhammad Farooq, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus S.P. LAHORE and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdur Rahman Khan and Qazi Muhammad Farooq, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus S.P. LAHORE and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Anwar Ghuman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th November, 2002. Petitioner was employed as Constable and on remaining absent from duty on the following dates he was dismissed from service: (i) 3-6‑1990 to 21‑6‑1990. (ii) 26‑6‑1990 to 8‑7‑1990, and (iii) 14‑7‑1990 till the date of dismissal from service. The Appeal preferred by the petitioner against his dismissal by the competent authority was rejected by the Service Tribunal through the impugned judgment.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had nine years service to his credit and that the medical certificates furnished by him could not be rejected summarily. The reasons given in the impugned order for not accepting the plea of the petitioner are reflected in Para No.5 which are reproduced:‑ "It can be made out without going into details that the appellant is making out a story. As a member of the disciplined force it was necessary for him to make sure that he appears before the Authorised Medical Officer duly appointed by his superiors and should have kept a constant link with his department to avoid the possibility of any communication gap. That not having been done the defence that the appellant's absence was due to illness cannot be accepted. The impugned orders were passed after observing necessary procedural formalities, are in accordance with the laid down procedure". We feel that the said reasons did justify the refusal of the relief sought and consequently this petition is dismissed and leave is refused. Q.M.H./M‑441/S Petition dismissed.