PLC(CS) 2003

2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ALTAF HUSSAIN SHAH Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and others

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal N0.22-L of 1999, decided on 9th May, 2002.
Honorable Judges
Rana Bhagwandas and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Rana Bhagwandas and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
Parties ALTAF HUSSAIN SHAH Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and others
Primary Law Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
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)) (ALTAF HUSSAIN SHAH Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975

Representation

  • Sheikh Salahud Din, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing: 9th May, 2002:
  • A.H. Maqsood, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 25-10-1998 passed in Appeal No. 1209 of 1997).

Rr. 4, 5 & 6

Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art. 212(3)

Dismissal from service

Allegation of misconduct

Contention of civil servant was that he was condemned unheard and that no regular enquiry was held

Service Tribunal dismissed appeal filed by civil servant

Validity-- Impugned judgment and record showed that proper procedure under Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline), Rules, 1975 had been observed and rules , of natural justice had been strictly adhered to

Maximum possible opportunity of defence had been provided to civil servant as he was heard both by Appointing Authority and Appellate Forum

No substantial question of law of public importance was made out

Supreme Court dismissed petition in circumstances. A.H. Maqsood, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.

Judgment & Decree

RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.

Petitioner, formerly a Constable in the Police Department at Rajanpur was dismissed from service by Superintendent of Police Rajanpur on the charge that he alongwitli an other person was running gambling den. An enquiry was ordered and, after examining witnesses and holding through probe into the charge, Enquiry Officer reported about direct involvement of the petitioner in running a gambling den. Petitioner was served with a show cause notice and afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. After complying with all legal requirements, his services were dispensed with.

2. He preferred a service appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred as the Tribunal) and agitated the grounds that he had been condemned unheard; that no regular inquiry was held and that he was not afforded a chance of being heard. All these contentions were duly considered by the Tribunal and repelled for valid reasons after consulting the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the same arguments, which were advanced before the Tribunal. We have perused the judgment and examined the record, which clearly tends to show that proper procedure under Punjab Police Service (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1975 was observed and the rules of natural justice were strictly adhered. It is not correct to say that the petitioner was deprived of reasonable opportunity of hearing or that no enquiry was held. He was not only - heard by the appointing authority but also by the appellate forum. Indeed maximum possible opportunity of defence was provided to him.

4. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law of general public importance is made out. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. S.A.K./A-285/SC Petition dismissed.