1990 PLP 666 (SCMR)
IQBAL MASIH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 666 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | IQBAL MASIH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Rules, 1979‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 666 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Rules, 1979‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 666 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 666 (SCMR) (IQBAL MASIH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 24‑12‑1987 of the Punjab Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 594 of 1986). ‑‑‑R. 11(3)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Dismissal of appeal for non‑prosecution due to failure to deposit security‑‑‑Petitioner's application for extension of time for deposit of security was dismissed‑‑‑Extension of time for deposit of security or refusal of the same was within discretion of Tribunal according to conduct of the party‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere in the exercise of such discretion‑‑‑Petitioner also had no case on merits. Mehr Muhammad Nawaz and 11 others v. Government of the Punjab and others 1977 P L C (C.S.T.) 165 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought; against the dismissal by the Punjab Service Tribunal, of petitioner'sService Appeal for non‑prosecution and the dismissal of his restoration application. The dismissal of the appeal was necessitated on account of non- prosecution by the petitioner of his appeal; in his failure to deposit the security in accordance with the rules and practice of the Tribunal. When questioned; whether, the impugned orders passed by the Service Tribunal are against any rule or in other words; whether, any rule supports the petitioner's case learned counsel failed to make any reference to any such rule‑ instead he relied upon Mehr Muhammad Nawaz and 11 others v. Government of the Punjab and others 1977 P L C (C.S.T.) 165 to contend that the Service Tribunal had in similar circumstances, chosen not to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution. While dealing with the question of deposit of security the Tribunal observed as follows:‑‑ "So far as the last objection based on the failure to deposit the security was concerned, the same is equally devoid of any force. The provisions of rule 11(3) which enable the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal in a case of non‑compliance with the orders of Registrar, have not been shown to be attracted to the facts before us. The case of the appellants is that in most of the cases the security has been deposited. In any case we can ourselves allow the appellants to deposit the same and we have directed them to deposit the same within a fortnight from the date of the objection." The aforequoted observations relate to the appreciation of conduct of a party before the Tribunal, vis‑a‑vis, the penalty of dismissal of a matter for non -prosecution. The learned Members of the Tribunal seem to have exercised their discretion in the favour of the appellants before them. In this case also if the Tribunal would have chosen to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner this Court might not have disturbed the exercise of that discretion on the asking of the other party. It is not the case of the learned counsel that the requirements of rule have been satisfied by the petitioner in this case. The grievance that the petitioner had also asked for extension of time for deposit of the security but without any success, is also of no avail to the petitioner; because, the same would fall within the same discretionary jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Besides we having questioned the learned counsel about the merits of the petitioners case against orders of his dismissal for misconduct, have not been able to find any force in his case on merits. Accordingly in the light of what has been stated above, leave to appeal is refused, as there is no case on merits either. M.A.K./1‑91/S, Leave refused.