1990 PLP 1440 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HASHAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1440 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Appeal filed by petitioner, a Police Constable, before Service Tribunal against his order of dismissal passed by D.I.‑G. of Police as Appellate Authority, was dismissed by Service Tribunal being barred by time‑‑‑Petitioner sought condonation of delay claiming credit for time spent by him in pursuing his representation before I.‑G. Police‑‑‑Order passed by D.I.‑G. as Appellate Authority being final, no representation lay to I.G. as a matter of right‑‑‑No legal error, having been found in view taken by Service Tribunal in dismissing appeal of petitioner on ground of limitation; leave to appeal was refused.‑‑Limitation.. |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HASHAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1440 (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 1990 PLP 1440 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Appeal filed by petitioner, a Police Constable, before Service Tribunal against his order of dismissal passed by D.I.‑G. of Police as Appellate Authority, was dismissed by Service Tribunal being barred by time‑‑‑Petitioner sought condonation of delay claiming credit for time spent by him in pursuing his representation before I.‑G. Police‑‑‑Order passed by D.I.‑G. as Appellate Authority being final, no representation lay to I.G. as a matter of right‑‑‑No legal error, having been found in view taken by Service Tribunal in dismissing appeal of petitioner on ground of limitation; leave to appeal was refused.‑‑Limitation.. bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1440 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HASHAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Abdus Salecm, Bar‑at‑Law, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st August, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 7‑11‑1987 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Appeal No. 784 of 1987). ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Appeal filed by petitioner, a Police Constable, before Service Tribunal against his order of dismissal passed by D.I.‑G. of Police as Appellate Authority, was dismissed by Service Tribunal being barred by time‑‑‑Petitioner sought condonation of delay claiming credit for time spent by him in pursuing his representation before I.‑G. Police‑‑‑Order passed by D.I.‑G. as Appellate Authority being final, no representation lay to I.G. as a matter of right‑‑‑No legal error, having been found in view taken by Service Tribunal in dismissing appeal of petitioner on ground of limitation; leave to appeal was refused.‑‑[Limitation.].
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was a Constable in the .Police Force. On the allegation that he had intentionally concealed the facts within his knowledge in a departmental inquiry relating to the death of a person by a head constable, he was served with a show‑cause notice by the Superintendent of Police. He submitted a reply and was also heard in person. His explanation was found unsatisfactory and he was dismissed from service. He filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police but without any success. He filed a representation before the Inspector‑General of Police but that too failed. He then preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. This was dismissed on the ground of limitation. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court. Before the Tribunal the petitioner sought condonation of delay by claiming credit for the time he had spent in pursuing his representation before the I.‑G. The learned Tribunal declined to give him allowance for the said purpose. Considering that the order of the D.I.‑G. on his appeal was final and that no representation lay to I.‑G. as a matter of right we can find no legal error in the view taken by the learned Tribunal. The petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1098/S Petition dismissed.