MUHAMMAD NASEEB KHAN Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑ Muhammad Naseeb Khan Ex‑Foot Constable has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Inspector -General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan and the Superintendent of Police, Sabiwal as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the respondents be directed to allow the appellant to withdraw his resignation and to consider him in continuous service without any break.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant tendered his resigna tion from service on 9th December, 1979 due to his domestic circum stances and his resignation was accepted on 3rd January, 1980, by the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal. Afterwards, he requested to withdraw his resignation. His request was not accepted by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Then he filed an appeal before the Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore, which was also rejected. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Depart ment. We have perused the record in this case at the stage of preliminary bearing. The only issue involved in this case' is whether the appellant was entitled to any relief, in view of the fact that he bad with drawn his resignation so tendered earlier by him and duly accepted by the competent authority?

5. The record in this case shows that the appellant Muhammad Naseeb Khan who had joined the Police Force on 9th November, 1967 as a Foot Constable tendered his resignation on 9th December, 1979 which was accepted on 3rd January, 1980. The appellant was relieved) of his service and went home. In view of the above circumstances the law laid down by us in case No. 150; 1302 of 1974 Nur‑uz‑Zaman v. Government of the Punjab, Home Department decided on 15th February,), 1982, would not be applicable to the case of the appellant. The case the appellant does not fall within the purview of the said judgment, as the appellant had been relieved from the department, after acceptance of his resignation.

6. Result is that the appeal is dismissed in limine, as being without any merits,

M. Y. M.

Appeal dismissed.