Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 645 of 1982, decided on 18th January, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 25th April, 1982 passed in Case No. 344/1045 of 1980).
‑‑ Art. 212(3) read with Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4‑Compulsory retirement from service‑Petition for leave to appeal‑Limitation‑Petition barred by 21 days‑No cause shown for condonation of delay‑Petition dismissed as time‑barred.
M. Afzal Quraishi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
M. M. Said Baig Advocate Supreme Court and M. M. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 16th January, 1983.
Leave is sought to appeal against judg ment and order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 25‑4‑1982 passed in Case No. 344/1045 of 1980.
2. Jafar Hussain was in the police service as A, S. 1. when by order of S. P. Faisalabad dated 19‑1‑1980 issued under section 12(ii) Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 his retirement was ordered. The petitioner challenged this order before the Punjab Service Tribunal but his appeal failed vide the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel urged‑ before us that the petitioner was condemned unheard by the learned Tribunal as his appeal was not fixed for hearing on 25‑4‑1982 and the impugned order was passed at his back; that the peti tioner should be removed/retired from service by the 'competent authority i.e. S. P., Faisalabad and not by the Advisory Committee, Rawalpindi which consisted of the Superintendents of Police, Gujrat and Attock under the Chairmanship of D. I.‑G., Rawalpindi ; as the petitioner's 'appointing authority' was S. P., Faisalabad who was not a member of the said Advisory Committee ; that the S. P., Faisalabad acted on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee in passing the order dated 19‑1‑1980 and, did not apply his own mind to decide about the petitioner's retirement, and, therefore, the order dated 19‑1‑1980 was unlawful.
4. We fail to see any substance in the argument. We find from the record that the petitioner himself filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court instead of making his remedy before the Punjab Service Tribunal, where respondent gave an undertaking that the petitioner will be paid full salary up to 9‑4‑1980 and, therefore, the writ petition was disposed off, the High Court with the observation that the matter of retirement should be agitated before the Punjab Service Tribunal, however, the petition before us is barred by time by 21 days and no cause has been shown for the condonation of delay, nor is there any explanation on the record as to why the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court when the Service Tribunal was already dealing with the service matters. Petitioner being a police officer, should have been vigilant enough to file this petition in time. He has failed to prosecute his own case diligently. The petition is dismissed as barred by time.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer