Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 155‑K of 1986, decided on 11th June, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 14‑1‑1986 in Appeal No. 147(K) of 1983).
‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4‑‑Compulsory retirement‑‑Only plea urged by petitioner, that he was harshly treated in matter of sentence not raised by him before Service Tribunal‑ Petitioner, held, could not be allowed to raise such fresh plea for the first time‑‑Punishment awarded to petitioner otherwise legal and warranting no interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Muhammad Ali Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 11th June, 1986.
This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dismissing petitioner's appeal against the order of his compulsory retirement from service. The aforesaid order was passed against the petitioner after a departmental enquiry on the charge that he had failed to report on duty on the expiry of leave. The Service Tribunal held that there was no defect in the departmental enquiry held against the petitioner and "the charge that he was guilty of misconduct in so far so, that while on leave he obtained a medical certificate from a private practitioner to justify his absence, knowing well that the same is not acceptable as per Pakistan Rangers (Leave) Rules, 1981 stands substantiated against the appellant and betrays an irresponsible attitude from a member of a disciplined force which can hardly be approved."
The only plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Service Tribunal was that the petitioner was harshly treated in the matter of sentence.
This plea was not raised on behalf of the petitioner before the Service Tribunal and he cannot, therefore, be allowed to raise this fresh plea for the first time before this Court. Even otherwise since the petitioner has been awarded the punishment which is otherwise legal, interference would not be justified. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer