Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---- (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIOER, OKARA — Respondent
| Citation | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---- (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIOER, OKARA — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---- (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---- (PLP)?
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: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---- (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIOER, OKARA — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faiz Muhammad Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st August, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 7-9-1985 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 246 of 1985.) ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Delay of 11 days in fling petition was condoned, but there being no ground for interfering with judgment of Service Tribunal leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was a Reader in the Court of a Magistrate at Depalpur. On the charges that he did not reside at the station of his posting and was habitually late in attending the Court disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The inquiry officer found .the charges established and submitted his report to the Deputy Commissioner and then sent a show‑cause notice to; him, The petitioner failed to respond to the notice but instead startup applying for leave on medical grounds on the basis of certificates issued by private medical practitioners. He was called upon to appear before the Medical Superintendent but the communications sent to him in this regard remained unanswered as he was not available on the address that he had himself supplied to the office. In these circumstances the notices were published in the daily newspapers. These publications failed to elicit any response from him. Ultimately, the Deputy Commissioner sent another show‑cause notice to him at his East known address why action should not be taken against him for unauthorised absence. At last he submitted a reply. The Deputy Commissioner considered his reply and also heard him in person. He found his explanation unsatisfactory and removed him from service. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner but it was dismissed. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal but that too failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. This petition is barred by 11 days. For the reasons stated at the bar we condone the delay.
3. On merits we can find no ground for interfering with the judgment of they learned Tribunal. He remained absent from duty from 26‑12‑1982 to 4‑7‑
198. No doubt had been applying for leave on medical grounds but the directions of his office that he should appear before the Medical Superintendent remained uncomplied with its he was not available at the address he had given to the office. It also does not appear that he was so sick that he could not contact his office to find out as to what happened to his (cave applications. This was clearly a case of gross indiscipline and one cannot avoid the impression that he had purposely become untraceable to prolong .the disciplinary preceding that were pending d against him. This is not a fit case for interference by this Court. The petition is' dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1088/S Petition dismissed.