2004 PLP 327 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RIAZ, EX-CONSTABLE NO.716C — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 327 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RIAZ, EX-CONSTABLE NO.716C — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 327 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 327 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 327 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RIAZ, EX-CONSTABLE NO.716C — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Ghulam Rasool, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 27th January, 2003
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 21-12-1999 passed by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore).
Art.212(3)
Service Tribunal by means of the impugned order had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner not only being barred by time but, also on merits on account of his unexplained continued long absence from duty
Record of petitioner was replete with red entries showing unauthorized' continued absence, for which he had been fined many a times
Accused was also earlier dismissed from service, but was subsequently reinstated
Punjab Service Tribunal was right in holding that the petitioner did not have any interest in the Government service particularly so when it was a disciplinary force
Case of petitioner did not involve a substantial question of law of public importance as envisaged by Article 212(3) of the Constitution
Leave to appeal was refused to petitioner accordingly. Nemo for. Respondent
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 21st December, 1999 whereby learned Chairman of the Punjab Service tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
2. Facts briefly are that petitioner was charge-sheeted on 10-1-1994 for his continued absence from duty which he did not respond in spite of notice. The competent authority, after examining his entire record, dismissed him from service through an order w.e.f. 28th of February, 1994. He filed appeals before D.I.-G. as well as before I.-G., both of which were rejected as he could not render explanation for his long absence. He filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which has been dismissed not only being barred out time but also on merit through impugned judgment. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. It is reflected from the impugned order that his record is full or red entries showing unauthorized continued absence. He was fined many a times and was earlier dismissed from service. He, however, was reinstated subsequently. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that he did not have any interest in the Government service particularly so when it, is a disciplinary force.
4. Apart from this, the points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not bring his case within the purview of Article 212(iii) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Resultantly for what has been stated above, the petition is dismissed and leave is refused. N.H.Q./M-883/S Leave refused.