LIAQAT ALI and 11 others vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD and others
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard petitions for leave to appeal filed by twelve police constables previously serving under the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad. The petitioners had engaged in a strike on 11 June 1983 and marched through Faisalabad bazars raising slogans against the District Magistrate. Following the issuance of show-cause notices and personal hearings, the Superintendent of Police dismissed them from service. Subsequent appeals before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and the Service Tribunal were dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the core consideration was whether the dismissals warranted appellate interference and whether any substantial question of law of public importance arose. The Court observed that the petitioners were provided adequate opportunity to defend themselves, failed to submit written replies to the show-cause notices, and merely pleaded for pardon during their personal hearings. Holding that no substantial question of law of public importance was raised and that the cases were not fit for interference, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
- Whether the dismissal of civil servants who participate in an unlawful strike and fail to contest show-cause notices raises a substantial question of law of public importance?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings upholding dismissal from service where delinquent employees were afforded adequate opportunity of hearing but merely begged for pardon?
- Is leave to appeal maintainable where the petitioners fail to raise any substantial question of law of public importance?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- The petitioners were constables on the establishment of the Superintendent of Police Faisalabad. On 11-6-1983, they went on strike and marched through the bazars of Faisalabad raising slogans against the District Magistrate. They were served with show-cause notices by the Superintendent of Police and heard in person. They were dismissed from service.
They filed appeals before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police which were dismissed. They then approached the Service Tribunal but without any success. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioners we are of the view that no substantial question of law of public importance arises for our consideration. The petitioners were given opportunity to defend themselves by the Superintendent of Police. They did not file any written reply to the show-cause notices and when they appeared before the Superintendent of Police in person they merely begged to be pardoned. These arc therefore, not fit cases for interference by this Court. Leave is refused.