1989 PLP 1149 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NASEEM SIPRA‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1149 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NASEEM SIPRA‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1149 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1149 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1149 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NASEEM SIPRA‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Manwar Sipra, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 1‑11‑1982). ‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Petition was barred by time‑‑Supreme Court, in the interest of justice and in order to make sure whether the case of the petitioner was properly considered, ignored the factum of delay and permitted the counsel of petitioner to address. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Expunction of adverse remarks entered in Annual Confidential Report of petitioner refused by Service Tribunal after thorough examination of service record‑‑Order of Tribunal was neither contrary to law nor without jurisdiction‑‑In the absence of any substantial question of law of public importance, no case is made out for leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Muhammad Naseem Sipra filed three separate appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. He wanted the adverse remarks entered in his annual confidential reports for the periods 10‑1‑79 to 21‑7‑79 22‑7‑79 to 31‑12‑79 and 21‑1‑80 to 31‑12‑80 to be expunged. The three appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal by judgment, dated 1‑11‑1982. He has now filed three separate petitions for leave to appeal. Civil Petitions Nos.41/83 and 42/83 are barred by ten days and 53/83 by fourteen days. In order to make sure whether the case of the petitioner was properly considered, we in the interest of justice ignored the factum of delay and permitted the counsel to address us on merits. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner we are of the view that the judgment of the Tribunal calls for no interference because the Tribunal after thorough examination of service record of the petitioner decided against him in accordance with law. As such the order is neither contrary to law nor without jurisdiction. In the absence of any substantial question of law of public importance we don't think any case is made out for leave to appeal. All the three petitions are hereby dismissed. M.BA./M‑812/S Petitions dismissed.