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.
Constitutional Petition No.D‑188 of 1987, decided on 16th March, 1987.
‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Dismissal of petitioner from service after due inquiry‑‑No remedy pursued against dismissal order for three years‑‑Constitutional petition whether maintainable against dismissal order‑‑Where after due inquiry petitioner was dismissed and he did not pursue any remedy against such dismissal, order of dismissal having been in operation for three years, High Court declined interference in constitutional jurisdiction against such order of dismissal.
Ghulam Muhammad for Petitioner.
S.Hamid Hussain for Respondent No.1.
‑‑The petitioner was dismissed from service after show‑cause notice and due inquiry on 18‑3‑1984. The petitioner of course had not participated in the inquiry. The petitioner's contention was that he was punished on account of his activities as the founder of 'Mazdoor Rabta Committee'. The petitioner has not claimed that he had no notice of the proceedings but what he has stressed is that he was later on treated at the K . P . T . expenses in a mental hospital. K . P . T . has not denied that position but they have explained that it was a mistake on the part of C.M.O. to get him admitted in the mental hospital and the said mistake was caused by the production of the Identity Card of the K.P.T. which the petitioner had retained. The KPT has stated that it has reserved it's right to recover the charges for the medical treatment from the petitioner.
However, what is important is that after due inquiry the petitioner was dismissed on 18‑3‑1984 and he did not pursue any remedy against that dismissal order and, therefore, the same had been operative for three years before the petitioner came to this, court on 9‑2‑1987. The petitioner has not been able to explain the' delay in any satisfactory manner and, therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the said order. If the petitioner had felt aggrieved against the order of dismissal then he could have pursued the legal remedies open to him under law within the time allowed but since he has not done so, therefore, this petition cannot: be entertained, The order of dismissal has been passed after due, inquiry. It is not possible for us to interfere with the findings in the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
Consequently this petition is dismissed in limine. Misc. Application are also dismissed.
A.A./G‑32/K.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer