Pakistan Case Law← Search
2013 SCMR 567, 2013 PLC (C.S.) 793

MUZAFFAR ALI vs COMMANDANT RANGERS and another

Citation2013 SCMR 567, 2013 PLC (C.S.) 793
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,60-L of 2012
Date2012-12-12
Judge(s)Sarmad Jalal Osmany, Tasaddaq Hussain Jillani
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Petitioner while serving as Hawaldar in Pakistan Rangers was proceeded against on charges of misconduct with the allegation that he remained absent without leave on various dates and in one stretch for a period of 2 years 11 months and 5 days. The inquiry proceedings culminated in the award of major penalty of dismissal from service, his departmental appeal failed and appeal before the Service Tribunal was also dismissed vide the impugned judgment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was absent on account of unavoidable circumstances; that he was falsely involved in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,396 dated 30-5-2004 under section 324/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Ghulam Muhammadabad, Faisalabad, that on account of the said case petitioner's entire family absconded; that there was nobody who could inform the department and therefore, he informed the department immediately after his acquittal on 23-6-2007.

3. Mr. Muhammad Arshad, Inspector Legal, defends the impugned judgment and submits that a regular inquiry was conducted; that petitioner was given personal hearing by the Director-General Rangers and that his absence without leave for such a long time was a serious act of misconduct, which could not be countenanced in a disciplined force like Pakistan Rangers.

4. Having heard petitioner's learned counsel and Inspector Legal and having gone through the impugned judgment, we find that there is absolutely no justifiable explanation for his absence for the afore-referred long period of 2 years 11 months and 5 days. Even after his acquittal, he did not inform the department for more than a week. The penalty awarded has not been found by us to be unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of this case. Petitioner's learned counsel has not raised any question of law of public importance in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution to warrant interference. The petition lacking in merit is accordingly dismissed.

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