SULTAN SAKANDAR vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MIANWALI and others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 5-8-1981, which decided two appeals brought by the petitioner against orders issued by the Superintendent of Police, Mianwali. The Tribunal had upheld the order dated 6-12-1979 as legal while declaring the order dated 24-1-1980—which reduced the petitioner's rank from Head Constable to Foot Constable—to be without lawful authority due to non-compliance with the prescribed Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The core question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal suffered from any legal infirmity or misapplication of applicable rules. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's order was in accordance with law and that no ground was established to show that the Tribunal acted contrary to law or any relevant rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Whether an order reducing a civil servant's rank is lawful if passed without complying with the procedure laid down in the applicable Efficiency and Discipline Rules?
- Whether leave to appeal will be granted by the Supreme Court when the Service Tribunal's judgment is found to be in accordance with law and applicable rules?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Sultan Sakandar, A.S.I. No,314 Mianwali now H. C. No, 20, Police Station Bhakkar, District Mianwali, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 5-8-1981.
2. ' The petitioner had filed two appeals before the Tribunal in which he impugned the orders dated 6- 12-1979 and 24-1-1980 of the S.P. Mianwali. Both the appeals were decided by means of the impugned order.
3. The Tribunal after discussing the merits came to the conclusion that the order dated 6-12-1979 was legal and called for no interference. But with regard to order dated 24-1-1980 whereby the petitioner was reduced from the rank of H. C. To that of F. C., the finding of the Tribunal was that this order was without lawful authority as it did not comply with the procedure laid down in the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. To that extent the appeal was accepted.
4. ' We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. We don't think the Tribunal in passing the impugned order acted contrary to law or any of the rules applicable to the case of the petitioner.
5. As the impugned order is in accordance with law, therefore, we decline to grant leave to appeal.
6. ' Dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.