2003 PLP 626 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HANIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S. P., LAHORE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 626 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdur Rahman Khan and Qazi Muhammad Farooq, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S. P., LAHORE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 626 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 626 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdur Rahman Khan and Qazi Muhammad Farooq, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 626 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HANIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S. P., LAHORE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Anwar Ghuman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th November, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
(On Appeal from the order, dated 3‑7‑1998 of the Punjab Service Tribunal passed in, Appeal No. 517 of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S.4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Dismissal from service ‑‑‑Absence from duty‑‑‑Plea of illness‑‑‑Failure to appear before authorized medical officer‑‑‑Civil servant was a police constable and remained absent from duty without leave‑‑‑Reason advanced by him for his absence was his illness‑‑‑Competent Authority rejected the Medical Certificates produced by the civil servant on the ground that he failed to appear before the authorized Medical Officer and had not kept a constant link with his Department to avoid the possibility of any communication gap‑‑‑Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the civil servant‑‑ Plea raised by the civil servant was that the Medical Certificates could not be rejected summarily by the Authorities‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Reasons given for dismissal of appeal of the civil servant were justified‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th November, 2000. Petitioner was employed as constable and on remaining absent from duty on in following dates, he was dismissed from service: (i) 3‑6‑1990 to 21‑0‑1990, (11) 26‑6‑1990 to 8‑7‑1990, and (iii) 14‑7‑1990 till the date of dismissal from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against his dismissal by the competent authority was rejected by the Service Tribunal through the impugned judgment.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had cline years' service to his credit and, that the medical certificates furnished by him could not be rejected summarily. The reasons given in the impugned order for not accepting the plea of the petitioner are reflected in para. No.5 which are reproduced:‑‑‑ "It can be made out without going into details that the appellant is making out a story. As a member of the disciplined force it was necessary for him to make sure that he appears before the Authorised Medical Officer duly appointed by his superiors and should have kept a constant link with his department to avoid the possibility of any communication gap. That not having been done the defence that the appellant's absence was due to illness cannot be accepted. The impugned orders were passed after observing necessary procedural formalities, are in accordance with the laid down procedure." We feel that the said reasons did justify the refusal of the relief sought and consequently this petition is dismissed and leave is refused. Q.M.H./M‑441/S Petition dismissed.