MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs S.P. CITY DIVISION, LAHORE and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Service Tribunal's order concerning the reinstatement of a police constable who had been dismissed from service following a criminal case registered under Section 448 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Although the Service Tribunal set aside the dismissal and ordered the petitioner's reinstatement, it directed that the period during which he remained out of service be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. The petitioner challenged this specific condition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal's discretionary power to treat the out-of-service period as extraordinary leave without pay was exercised lawfully. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had properly exercised its discretionary powers. Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of statutory rules or provisions of law, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the exercise of such discretion and dismissed the petition.
- Whether the Service Tribunal has the discretionary power to treat the period a civil servant remained out of service as extraordinary leave without pay upon reinstatement?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary powers exercised by the Service Tribunal in the absence of any violation of law or statutory rules?
- Section 448, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' NAIMUDDIN, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the Tribunal dated 22nd October, 1985. He was a police constable. A case was registered against him alongwith Muhammad Malak, under section 448, P.P.C,, at Police Station Factory Area, Lahore. A show-cause notice was also served on him on 11th April, 1981, by the Superintendent Police City Division, Lahore.
2. Finding his reply unsatisfactory, the Superintendent of Police dismissed him from service vide his order, dated 22nd April, 1981. He and Muhammad Malak made a joint appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore but he rejected the same by the order, dated 5th July, 1981. His review petition to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, also failed, therefore, he took the matter to the Service Tribunal and succeeded there. While setting aside the orders appealed from, the Tribunal directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service from the date of his dismissal. The Tribunal, however, directed that the period for which the petitioner remained out of service shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. It is this part of the order with which the petitioner feels aggrieved.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Tribunal by ordering that the period for which the petitioner remained out of service shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay, has exercised its discretionary powers and no valid ground has been urged for our interference with the exercise of such powers nor violation of any rule or provisions of law has been pointed out.
4. We, therefore, find no merits in this petition and accordingly dismiss it.
Cited by 3 cases
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs SAKHI MUHAMMAD And 2 Other 1994 PLD Lahore 338
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs SAKHI MUHAMMAD And 2 Others 1994 PLC 383
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs SAKIII MUHAMMAD and 2 others 1994 PLD Lahore 338