MUHAMMAD NASEEM SIPRA vs SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
This matter concerns three petitions for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeals seeking the expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his annual confidential reports for the years 1979 and 1980. Although the petitions were filed with a delay of ten to fourteen days, the Supreme Court, in the interest of justice, condoned the delay to examine the merits of the case. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal's decision to uphold the adverse remarks was legally sound and within its jurisdiction. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had thoroughly examined the petitioner's service record and reached a decision in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference, as the impugned order was neither contrary to law nor lacking jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that in the absence of any substantial question of law of public importance, leave to appeal could not be granted. Accordingly, all three petitions were dismissed.
- Can the Supreme Court condone a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal in the interest of justice?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal's decision if it is based on a thorough examination of the service record?
- Is a substantial question of law of public importance required for the grant of leave to appeal in service matters?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Muhammad Naseem Sipra filed three separate appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. He wanted the adverse remarks entered in his annual confidential reports for the periods 10-1-79 to 21-7-79; 22-7-79 to 31-12-79 and 21-1-80 to 31-12-80 to be expunged. The three appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal by judgment, dated 1-11-1982. He has now filed three separate petitions for leave to appeal.
2. Civil Petitions Nos.41/83 and 42/83 are barred by ten days and 53/83 by fourteen days. In order to make sure whether the case of the petitioner was properly considered, we in the interest of justice ignored the factum of delay and permitted the counsel to address us on merits.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner we are of the view that the judgment of the Tribunal calls for no interference because the Tribunal after thorough examination of service record of the petitioner decided against him in accordance with law. As such the order is neither contrary to law nor without jurisdiction. In the absence of any substantial question of law of public importance we don't think any case is made out for leave to appeal. All the three petitions are hereby dismissed.
Cited by 13 cases
- Muhammad Furqan Khan vs Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1459
- Mst. NAGHMANA ZAIDI vs TAYYABA BEGUM (deceased) through L.Rs 2019 PLJ Lahore 500
- Haji ABDUL QAYYUM vs CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CEO MEPCO and 2 others 2019 PLJ Tr.C. (Labour) 52
- SECRETARY (C&W) PUNJAB LAHORE etc vs ZAFAR IQBAL, etc 2019 PLJ Tr.C. (Labour) 47
- SECRETARY (C&W) PUNJAB LAHORE Versus ZAFAR IQBAL 2019 PLC 79
- ASHRAF SUGAR MILLS LIMITED Versus ABDUL GHAFFAR 2018 PLCN 5
- Sheikh LAEEQ AHMAD Versus SHABBIR AHMAD 2017 CLCN 37
- MUHAMMAD AZAM Versus ABDUL QAYYUM KHAN 2017 CLCN 48
- MUNIR AHMAD vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA 2010 SCMR 1982
- MUHAMMAD ISLAM vs I.G. ISLAMABAD, etc. 2011 PLJ SC 297
- MUHAMMAD ISLAM vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and others 2011 SCMR 8
- MUHAMMAD ISLAM vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL, ISLAMABAD and others 2011 PLC (C.S.) 1
- Present: Shafiur Rahman, Afmal Mian and Rustam S. Sidhwa, H FAZAL ELAHI 1990 PLD Supreme Court 692