1990 PLP 1001 (SCMR)
NAZIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OKARA and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1001 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rehman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OKARA and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1001 (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 1001 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rehman 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 1001 (SCMR) (NAZIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OKARA and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 17‑9‑1987 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Appeal No. 237 of 1987). ‑‑‑‑S.4‑‑‑Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R.14(5)‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Order dismissing petitioner from service passed in appeal by Appellate Authority was final and petitioner before filing appeal against that order before Tribunal, made a representation to Inspector‑General of Police, but that also failed‑‑‑Petitioner thereafter preferring appeal before Tribunal beyond prescribed period, sought condonation for delay claiming allowance for time spent by him in pursuing his representation before Inspector‑General which Service Tribunal refused‑‑‑View taken by Service Tribunal in refusing to condone delay not suffering from any infirmity, petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.4‑‑‑Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R.14(5)‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Order dismissing petitioner from service passed in appeal by Appellate Authority was final and petitioner before filing appeal against that order before Tribunal, made a representation to Inspector‑General of Police, but that also failed‑‑‑Petitioner thereafter preferring appeal before Tribunal beyond prescribed period, sought condonation for delay claiming allowance for time spent by him in pursuing his representation before Inspector‑General which Service Tribunal refused‑‑‑View taken by Service Tribunal in refusing to condone delay not suffering from any infirmity, petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31st July, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was a constable on the establishment of the Superintendent of Police at Okara. On the allegation that at the time of joining service he had produced a certificate in which his date of birth had been tampered with, he was served with a show‑cause notice. He submitted a written reply and was also heard in person by the Superintendent of Police. His explanation was found unsatisfactory and he was dismissed from service. He . preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector‑General which was dismissed. He made a representation to the Inspector‑General of Police but this was also filed. He then preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. It was dismissed on the ground of limitation. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Under rule 14(5) the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, the order made by the Deputy Inspector‑General on the appeal of the petitioner was final. Consequently, the time for filing the appeal before the Tribunal started running against him from the date the order of the Deputy Inspector‑General was conveyed to him. It is not disputed that he did not prefer the appeal before the tribunal within the prescribed period. However, he sought condonation for the delay by claiming allowance for the time he had spent in pursuing his representation before the Inspector‑General. The learned Tribunal declined his prayer and refused to condone the delay. We do not find that the view taken by the learned Tribunal in this regard suffers from any infirmity. The petition is dismissed. H.B.T./N‑210/S Petition dismissed.