1990 SCMR1518 (PLP)
RASHID AHMAD TAHIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 SCMR1518 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Sanod Jan, JJ |
| Parties | RASHID AHMAD TAHIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 SCMR1518 (PLP)?
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 1990 SCMR1518 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Sanod Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 SCMR1518 (PLP) (RASHID AHMAD TAHIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Sidhu, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 12‑10‑1985 in Case No.81X/1211 of 1984). ‑‑‑‑Rs.3, 4 & G‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑ No violation of any rule in awarding punishment to petitioner was found and his case was considered by Authorities below in accordance with law‑‑‑Petitioner also was not condemned unheard‑‑‑Case thus was not fit to grant leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑‑‑The petitioner got a very minor dose of punishment. The Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, awarded him punishment of reduction in pay by three stages by way of regular police proceedings as provided under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The period of suspension was to be treated as such. The aforesaid order was upheld in departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector‑General of police and was confirmed by the Punjab Service Tribunal where the petitioner appealed after having exhausted departmental remedies and his appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 12‑10‑1985 by the Punjab Service Tribunal. No doubt, according to the order of the Superintendent of Police, the tainted money of Rs.1,000 was not demanded by the petitioner as illegal gratification but the same was recovered from his possession. The petitioner being a member of the disciplined force, was not expected to pocket the same. He started his career on the corrupt foundation. May he that his superior officers as a well as the Tribunal wanted to give him one more chance to improve himself to be an officer worthy of the force The petitioner should be grateful for that otherwise we do not think that there was violation of any rule or that the petitioner was condemned unheard or that his case was not considered in accordance with law. Not a fit cast for leave. Dismissed. H.B.T./R‑120/S Petition dismissed.