Pakistan Case Law← Search
1981 PLC (C. S.) 533

MUHAMMAD ALI vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALAI3AD ETC. , _

Citation1981 PLC (C. S.) 533
CourtPunjab Service Tribunal
Judge(s)Malik Zawwar Hussain, Muhammad Saleem Chaudhry, S. Hafeez-Ur-
ResultAppeal dismissed

1. ' M. SALM. CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-In this case, Muhammad Ali a Police Constable, was dismissed from service with effect from 18th December 1976 vide order issued by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad on the ground that tainted money was recovered from his person by the raiding Magistrate in a case registered under F. I. R. No, 59 of 21st September, 1976. His appeal to the D.1.-G.

2. Police, Sargodha Range, was dismissed on 23rd May, 1977. The appellant preferred a revision petition to the Additional I.-G. Police which was rejected on 22nd February, 1978 and a mercy petition to the I.-G. Police which was filed on 23rd August, 1978.

2. The appellant did not rest here. He made a "supplementary appeal" which was not considered by the D. I.-G., being incompetent, and the appellant was duly informed vide order dated 26th September 1979 and a 'supplementary-cum-revision appeal to the I.-0. Police which was rejected on 21st November, 1979. It is to these extra "appeals" that the learned Government pleader took exception and objected on the grounds of limitation. He contended that the final order in the appellant's case was the one made by the D. I.-G. On 23rd May, 1917 and even if the revision petition and the mercy petition made respectively to the Addl. I.-G. And the 1.-G.P. Were taken to be justified, the final order was passed on 23rd August, 1978 whereas this appeal to the Tribunal was filed on 18th December, 1979. There was absolutely no provision in the Police Rules or the Police (E& D) Rules for "supplementary appeals" and the appellant cannot, by any , stretch of the law, be taken to have pursued his case in permissible forums " while making these appeals.

3. The appellant was heard. The objection raised by the Government Pleader regarding limitation appears to be valid. The appellant has not filed any application for condonation of delay.

4. Therefore, apart from the merits of the case, we do not see any justification for accepting this appeal on grounds of limitation alone. The appeal is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search