1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada Chairman |
| Parties | MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another |
| Primary Law | (b) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, (a) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, (a) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Saulah Siddiqui for Appellant.
- A.G. Humayun, D.A. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th August, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
Police Rules, 1934
No provision existed in Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 to impose penalty of recovery of amount nor such provision of Police Rules, 1934, could be borrowed and same too could not be taken into consideration as having been scrapped with enactment of Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975-- Penalty of recovery of amount was declared to be illegal and set aside.
Police Rules, 1934
Appellant Constable (Driver) charged for causing substantial damage to Government vehicle through his carelessness and indifference as a result of which engine of Vehicle was damaged-- Appellant was awarded penalty of recovery of amount of loss sustained by Government
No such punishment in Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 having been provided penalty of recovery was declared to be illegal and appellant was exonerated.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975
Police Rules, 1934
No provision existed in Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 to impose penalty of recovery of amount nor such provision of Police Rules, 1934, could be borrowed and same too could not be taken into consideration as having been scrapped with enactment of Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975-- Penalty of recovery of amount was declared to be illegal and set aside. (b) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975
Police Rules, 1934
Appellant Constable (Driver) charged for causing substantial damage to Government vehicle through his carelessness and indifference as a result of which engine of Vehicle was damaged-- Appellant was awarded penalty of recovery of amount of loss sustained by Government
No such punishment in Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 having been provided penalty of recovery was declared to be illegal and appellant was exonerated. Muhammad Saulah Siddiqui for Appellant. A.G. Humayun, D.A. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th August, 1989.