1989 PLP 589 (SCMR)
KHAN MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAWALPINDI
| Citation | 1989 PLP 589 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHAN MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAWALPINDI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 589 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 589 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 589 (SCMR) (KHAN MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAWALPINDI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich, Advocate Supreme Court and " Manzoor Illahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th October, 1988.
- Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich, Advocate Supreme Court and " Manzoor Illahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 4-10-1987 in Appeal No.200 of 1987).
Rr.5 & 6--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)--Limitation--Dismissal from service--Police official after partial acceptance of his departmental appeal, filing revision before the higher authority which was not treated as competent- Appeal filed, thereafter, before Service Tribunal having become time-barred was dismissed as such--Order impugned before Supreme Court with contention that time spent for filing revision should have been excluded from the period of limitation as of right--Petitioner's further contention was that even if such periods of time could not be excluded as of right, delay in that regard should have beer condoned--Time spent in pursuing a remedy before an incompetent forum and specified days, thereafter, could not be excluded from the period of limitation- No justification to interfere on facts regarding refusal to condone delay, could be pointed out--Observations on merits of case made by Service Tribunal being questions of fact, did not suffer from any infirmity--Leave to appeal refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th October, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the dismissal of his appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal on ground of limitation as also on merits. Learned counsel states that the petitioner who was serving as an A.S.I. of Police, was proceeded against for misconduct during the investigation of a case under section 307, P.P.C. He was found guilty by the Senior Superintendent of Police and was dismissed from service. His appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, was partly allowed. He was reinstated but to a lower rank. He further filed a revision before the Inspector‑General of Police, which was not treated as competent. Thereafter, he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The same having been dismissed on ground of limitation and merits, leave to appeal has now been sought. I Learned counsel contended that the time spent for filing the revision before the I.G. of Police and nine days after the decision of that revision which were taken to file an appeal before the Tribunal, should have been excluded from the period of limitation as of right. He further contended that even if those two periods of time could not be excluded as of right, the delay in that regard should have been condoned in the circumstances of this case. Lastly, he contended that the observations made by the Tribunal on merits of the case were not justified. We do not agree with the learned counsel the the period spent after the dismissal of the departmental appeal of the petitioner in pursuing still another departmental remedy which ultimately was held to be not competent, or the aforementioned nine days, could be excluded from the period of limitation. Nor A do we find any justification to interfere on facts, regarding refusal to condone the delay. And the observations on merits of the case made by the learned Tribunal also relate to the questions of fact. They do not suffer from any infirmity. There is no force in this petition. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. A.A./K‑82/S Leave to appeal refused.