19W PLP 1472 (SCMR)
HABIBULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SUPERINTENDFNT OF POLICE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 19W PLP 1472 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | HABIBULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SUPERINTENDFNT OF POLICE and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 19W PLP 1472 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 19W PLP 1472 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 19W PLP 1472 (SCMR) (HABIBULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SUPERINTENDFNT OF POLICE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rafiq Javed Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 30th'luly, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 9‑6‑1987 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeal No.280 or 1987). ‑‑‑R.14(b) ‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan W)7 1), Art.212(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑ Petitioner filed appeal before Tribunal after delay of 720 days from dismissal of final appeal filed by him before competent Appellate Authority‑‑Time for filing appeal before Tribunal having started running against petitioner from the very date of dismissal of final appeal before Competent Appellate Authority. Tribunal, held, did not commit any error of law in refusing to condone delay in filing appeal before it.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was a constable on the establishment of the Superintendent of Police Dera Ghazi Khan. On the allegation that he was involved in illegal dealings in narcotics, a show‑cause notice was served upon him by the Superintendent of Police on 20‑5‑1984. He submitted his written explanation. It was considered by the Superintendent of Police and was found unsatisfactory. Consequently, by an order dated 3‑6‑1984, he was dismissed from service. He filed an appeal which was dismissed on 13‑2‑1985 by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police. He was also prosecuted in a ‑criminal Court where he was acquitted. After his acquittal he submitted a representation to the Inspector‑General of Police but it was filed. He then preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. It was dismissed on the ground of limitation. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It is not disputed that the appeal of the petitioner before the Tribunal was barred by time. It is stated on his behalf that the learned Tribunal should have condoned the delay after giving him allowance for the period during which the criminal trial remained pending and the time spent in filing and pursuing the mercy petition.
3. It is to be noticed that under rule 14(b), the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, the decision of the Deputy Inspector‑General on the appeal of the petitioner was final. The mercy petition filed by the petitioner before the Inspector‑General did not lie as a matter of right. The time for filing the appeal before the Tribunal started running against the petitioner as soon as the Deputy Inspector‑General dismissed the appeal. The petitioner preferred the appeal after a delay of 720 days. If in the circumstances the learned Tribunal did not consider it fit to condone the delay, it committed no error of law. The petition is dismissed. H.B.T./H‑85/S . Petition dismissed.