1988 PLP 803 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHAFOOR‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 803 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFOOR‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 803 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 803 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 803 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHAFOOR‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Anwar Sipra, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th February, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 26‑10‑1980 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore in Appeal No.337 of 1980). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Civil service‑‑Service Tribunal‑‑Leave to appeal Grant of‑‑Contention not canvassed before Service Tribunal‑‑Not allowed to be raised‑‑Leave to appeal refused. (b) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.12(ii)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Retirement from service, challenged‑‑Plea that petitioner was retired from service by an incompetent authority not entertained because seemingly it was not canvassed before Service Tribunal and, therefore, not examined by it‑‑Not being a fit case for leave to appeal, petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was an Assistant Sub‑Inspector Police. His retirement was directed after he had completed 25 years of service qualifying him for pension. He represented against the order of retirement but without any success. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal but that too failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The only contention raised in support of this petition is that the petitioner was retired from service by an incompetent authority. It may be mentioned that from the order under appeal it does not appear that this contention was canvassed before the learned Tribunal. Had this been done, the learned Tribunal would have no doubt examined it. In the circumstances this is not a fit case where leave to appeal should be granted to the petitioner. The petition is accordingly dismissed.