KHAN MUHAMMAD vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAWALPINDI and others
The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police dismissed for misconduct, sought leave to appeal against the Punjab Service Tribunal's dismissal of his service appeal on the grounds of limitation and merits. The core legal questions involved whether the time spent pursuing an incompetent departmental revision and subsequent days before filing the appeal should be excluded from the period of limitation as of right, and whether the delay ought to have been condoned. The Supreme Court held that the period spent pursuing an incompetent departmental remedy cannot be excluded as of right from the period of limitation, and found no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay or its findings on merits concerning questions of fact. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that time spent on incompetent remedies does not automatically toll limitation periods in service matters.
- Can the time spent pursuing an incompetent departmental revision be excluded as of right from the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Is a Service Tribunal's refusal to condone delay open to interference by the Supreme Court when based on concurrent factual assessments?
- Do observations made by a Service Tribunal on the merits of a factual controversy warrant Supreme Court interference without a legal infirmity?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the dismissal of his appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal on ground of limitation as also on merits.
2. ' Learned counsel states that the petitioner who was serving as an A.S.I. Of Police, was proceeded against for misconduct during the investigation of a case under section 307, P.P.C. He was found guilty by the Senior Superintendent of Police and was dismissed from service. His appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, was partly allowed. He was reinstated but to a lower rank. He further filed a revision before the Inspector-General of Police, which was not treated as competent.
3. Thereafter, he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The same having been dismissed on ground of limitation and merits, leave to appeal has now been sought.
4. ' Learned counsel contended that the time spent for filing the revision before the L-G. Of Police and nine days after the decision of that revision which were taken to file an appeal before the Tribunal, should have been excluded from the period of limitation as of right. He further contended that even if those two periods of time could not be excluded as of right, the delay in that regard should have been condoned in the circumstances of this case.
5. ' Lastly, he contended that the observations made by the Tribunal on merits of the case were not justified.
6. We do not agree with the learned counsel that the period spent after the dismissal of the departmental appeal of the petitioner in pursuing still another departmental remedy which ultimately was held to be not competent, or the aforementioned nine days, could be excluded from the period of limitation. Nor do we find any justification to interfere on facts, regarding refusal to condone the delay. And the observations on merits of the case made by the learned Tribunal also relate to the questions of fact. They do not suffer from any infirmity.
7. ' There is no force in this petition. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.
8. ' Leave to .
Cited by 6 cases
- Altaf Hussain vs Federal Public Service Commission through its Chairman 2020 PLC (C.S) 1558, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 1707
- ALTAF HUSSAIN Versus FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 2020 PLC(CS) 1558
- Altaf Hussain vs Federal Public Service Commission through its Chairman 2019 IHC 96
- Messrs PAKISTAN STATE OIL CO. LTD. vs MUHAMAMD TAHIR KHAN and others 2001 PLC (C.S.) 591
- Syed KARRAR HUR RIZVI vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS 1989 PLC 769
- Messrs PAKISTAN STATE OIL CO. LTD. ISHFAQ HUSSAIN FAZLE MANSOOR and othersALLAH DINO MIRANI and 2001 PLD Supreme Court 980