2000 PLP f044 (SCMR)
TARIQ MEHMOOD — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB,
| Citation | 2000 PLP f044 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sh. Riaz Ahmed and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | TARIQ MEHMOOD — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP f044 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP f044 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sh. Riaz Ahmed and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP f044 (SCMR) (TARIQ MEHMOOD — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th November, 1999
- 4. Mr. Ch. Muhammad Akram, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of this petition was at his lowest in pleading the case of his client on allegations that (1) his appeal before the Tribunal was beyond time by year and (2) that his past conduct was not free from taint.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 1-2-1999 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 1862 of 1998).
S.4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Dismissal from service of civil servant, a police constable, on the ground of absence from duty without permission
Service Tribunal, while rejecting the appeal of civil servant had observed that Deputy Inspector-General of Police hats noted that civil servant in his service record had earned as many as 55 bad entries against only one good entry; that he was also dismissed on this very charge in the year 1992 but taking a lenient view, he was reinstated; that the D. I.-G. and I.-G. dismissed his appeal and revision observing that his service record was totally disappointing; that order in the case of civil servant was passed on 26-I1-1996 and instead of filing the appeal before Service Tribunal within a period of 30 days, the appeal was filed on 19-10-1998 which was grossly time-barred
Civil servant was himself to blame for not resorting to the remedy of appeal before Service Tribunal within time-- Beyond pleading that his absence was neither intentional nor deliberate, no serious effort whatsoever was made to explain each day's delay
Overview of service record of civil servant by the D.I.-G. and the I.-G.P. had .not been shown to be without basis
No substantial question of law whatsoever had been made out
Petition for leave to appeal against order of Service Tribunal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.
Leave to appeal is sought by petitioner-ex-Constable No.986/C against judgment, dated 1-2-1999 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, whereby his Appeal No. 1862 of 1998 was dismissed in limine.
2. The background is that during petitioner's posting as Guard at State Bank of Pakistan, Rawalpindi, he absented from duty with effect from 1-4-1995 to 12-10: 1995. When asked to show cause and explain his conduct, he did neither file a reply to the show-cause notice nor even bothered to appear for personal hearing before the Authority. He was dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi on 12-10-1995. His appeal and revision also met the same fate before the Deputy Inspector- General of Police, Rawalpindi and Inspector-General of Police, Punjab respectively on 9-5-1996 and 26-I1-1996.
3. Petitioner-Tariq Mahmood's appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal after noticing that the D.I.-G. had noted that in his service record he had earned as many as 55 bad entries against only 1 good entry. He was also dismissed on this very charge in the year 1992 but, taking a lenient view, he was reinstated. Both, the W.-G. and the I.-G.P. dismissed his appeal and revision observing that his service record was totally disappointing. The Tribunal also noticed that final order in the case of the petitioner was passed on 26-11-1996 and that instead of the filing the appeal before it within a period of 30 days, the appeal was resorted to on 19-10-1998 which is grossly time-barred.
4. Mr. Ch. Muhammad Akram, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of this petition was at his lowest in pleading the case of his client on allegations that (1) his appeal before the Tribunal was beyond time by year and (2) that his past conduct was not free from taint.
5. A perusal of the available material clearly brings it to the fore that the petitioner is himself to blame for not resorting to the remedy of appeal before the Tribunal within time. Beyond pleading that absence of the petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate, no serious effort whatsoever was made to explain each ,day's delay. Even the overview of his service record by the D.I.-G. and the I.-G.P. has not been shown to be without basis. Moreover, no substantial question of law whatsoever, has been made out, in these proceedings.
6. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. M. B. A./T-1/S Petition dismissed.