1984 PLP (S (PLC)
MANZOOR AHMAD Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS
| Citation | 1984 PLP (S (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Abdul Jabbar Khan, Chairman, Abdul Hamid Chaudhry and Mian Faiz Karim, Members |
| Parties | MANZOOR AHMAD Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP (S (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP (S (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Abdul Jabbar Khan, Chairman, Abdul Hamid Chaudhry and Mian Faiz Karim, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP (S (PLC) (MANZOOR AHMAD Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan Talib Hussain Baluch for Appellant.
- A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.
- 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney for respondents and also perused the relevant record carefully.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Condonation of overage‑Police constable guilty of miscondnct -Dismissed from service‑Punishment reduced to forfeiture of two years' service‑Subsequent request for condonation of overage to join training course declined by Department‑Contention that modification of punishment entitled constable to condonation of overage‑Held : Refusal for condonation of overage is discretion of competent authority and in circumstances was properly exercised.
Judgment & Decree
A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents. MIAN FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER). ‑Manzoor Ahmad has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded respondents as mentioned.
2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 8th June, 1983 passed by respondent No. 1 refusing to condone the overage to quality the Lower Training Cadres may be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case and grounds for the appeal are that the appellant joined the police as Constable on 30th May, 1969. Subsequently he was involved in a departmental enquiry regarding escape of an accused confined in the lock up of Police Station, Fazilpur, as a result of which he was dismissed. The appellant finally made representation to respondent No. 1 who modified the order of dismissal to forfeiture of two years service. After that the appellant requested that his over age period may be condoned and the appellant be permitted to join the Lower Training Course but the same was refused vide order, dated 8th June, 1983. The ground for the appeal is that in view of the modification of the dismissal order be was entitled to condonation of the period.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney for respondents and also perused the relevant record carefully.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has advanced the grounds in favour of the appellant as mentioned in para. 3 above. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal on the basis of the record as well as comments of the respondents. He submitted that the modification of the punishment awarded to the appellant could not justify the condonation of the age period.
6. We have carefully examined and scrutinized the entire facts raised by both the parties. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant was undisputedly dismissed from service but on appeal forfeiture of two years service was merely a lenient view as stated in the relevant comments. This did not remove the stigma of misconduct as a result of the final punishment against the appellant. As such the refusal for the condonation of the over age period which is a discretion of the competent authority was properly exercised.
7. Hence, we find no force in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. M.I Appeal dismissed.