2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
AMJAD ALI, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR (RETIRED) Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MULTAN and others
| Citation | 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | AMJAD ALI, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR (RETIRED) Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MULTAN and others |
| Primary Law | Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (AMJAD ALI, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR (RETIRED) Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MULTAN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tassawar Hussain Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court with Mr. Mehamood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 8th May, 2002.
- 4. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner. and Ms. Roshan Ara, learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondents and perusing the record as Well as the impugned judgment, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment or the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. In our view, there has been no miscarriage of justice and no substantial question of law of general public importance is involved in this petition.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 3-2-1999 passed .by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Appeal No. 1810 of 1997)
Rr. 4, 5 & 6
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)
Compulsory retirement from service
Bailiff of High Court recovered detenue from illegal confinement of civil servant (Assistant Sub-Inspector)
Liability of civil servant was proved to satisfaction of High Court, which directed him to pay certain sum as compensation
Civil Servant in departmental proceeding could not controvert such accusation, thus, had rightly been found guilty imposing such penalty
No Legal infirmity was found in impugned judgment or disciplinary proceedings
No miscarriage of justice had been caused
No substantial question of law of general public importance was involved in petition
Supreme Court dismissed petition. Roshan Ara, A.A.-G., Muhammad Shafiq, Inspector (Legal) and Amanatullah Inspector for the State.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioner serving as A.S.-I. Police was compulsorily retired from service by SSP Multan which action was confirmed in appeal and revision by DIG Police Multan and IG of Police Punjab.
2. Allegation against the petitioner was that Mr. Anwar Jamil Bailiff of the Lahore High Court recovered detenue Ghulam Sarwar from the illegal confinement of the petitioner at Police Station Jalal Pur Piranwala. Liability of the petitioner was proved to the satisfaction of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court who besides releasing the detenue from his wrongful confinement directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,000 by ,way of compensation.
3. Petitioner was proceeded, against after issuance of a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity of hearing in which he could not controvert the accusation against him. He did not impugn the correctness of the findings of fact recorded by the High Court and was thus rightly found guilty imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service.
4. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner. and Ms. Roshan Ara, learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondents and perusing the record as Well as the impugned judgment, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment or the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. In our view, there has been no miscarriage of justice and no substantial question of law of general public importance is involved in this petition.
5. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby, dismissed. S.A.K./A-293/SC Petition dismissed.