2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Syed FIDA HUSSAIN KAZMI Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB and others
| Citation | 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ |
| Parties | Syed FIDA HUSSAIN KAZMI Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB and others |
| Primary Law | Railways Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Railways Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Syed FIDA HUSSAIN KAZMI Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Ozair Chughtai, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Zubair Khalid., A.A.-G., Punjab and Asif Riaz Inspector Legal, Sahiwal for Respondents.
- 2. Even today the learned counsel for the petitioner has repeated the same request. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab as well as the Inspector (Legal), Sahiwal have also been heard. We have carefully gone through the orders passed by the departmental authority as well as by the Tribunal. In our view, the extreme penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service did not commensurate with the nature of his misconduct in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 4(1)(b)(ii) & (iv)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Penalty of dismissal from. service
Conversion into compulsory retirement
Petitioner did not press his petition on merits, but had sought indulgence of Supreme Court for conversion of extreme penalty of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement from service
Extreme penalty of dismissal of petitioner from service did not commensurate with the nature of his misconduct in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and same was partly allowed
Impugned orders of dismissal from service, were modified to the extent that penalty of dismissal of petitioner from service was converted into compulsory retirement from service.
Judgment & Decree
The learned counsel for the petitioner on the last date of hearing, frankly stated that he did not press the petition on merits and sought indulgence of this Court for conversion of the extreme penalty of dismissal into compulsory retirement from service. It was also brought to our notice that in the meantime the petitioner had completely 'lost his eye-sight and had children of marriageable age.
2. Even today the learned counsel for the petitioner has repeated the same request. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab as well as the Inspector (Legal), Sahiwal have also been heard. We have carefully gone through the orders passed by the departmental authority as well as by the Tribunal. In our view, the extreme penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service did not commensurate with the nature of his misconduct in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Therefore, this petition is converted into appeal and the same is partly allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment, dated 15-8-2002 passed by the Punjab Service. Tribunal in Appeal No.641 of 2001 as well as the order, dated 12-10-2000 passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range, are modified to the extent that the penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service is convected into compulsory retirement from service. However, there shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./F-44/SC Order accordingly.