MUHAMMAD HASHAM vs INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB and 2
The petitioner, a former Police Constable, challenged his dismissal from service following a departmental inquiry. After his departmental appeals to the Deputy Inspector General of Police and a subsequent representation to the Inspector General of Police were unsuccessful, he approached the Punjab Service Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed his appeal on the ground of limitation, refusing to condone the delay caused by the time spent pursuing a representation before the Inspector General of Police. The petitioner sought leave to appeal this decision before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing a departmental representation, which was not a statutory right, could be excluded for the purpose of limitation. The Supreme Court held that since the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police was final and no right of representation to the Inspector General of Police existed, the Tribunal correctly refused to condone the delay. The petition was dismissed, affirming that time spent pursuing non-statutory remedies does not extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before a Service Tribunal.
- Does the time spent pursuing a departmental representation, which is not a statutory right, count towards the limitation period for filing an appeal before a Service Tribunal?
- Is an order passed by a Deputy Inspector General of Police in a departmental appeal considered final for the purpose of limitation?
- Can a Service Tribunal condone delay based on time spent pursuing non-statutory remedies?
- Section 4, Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974
ORDER
1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner was a Constable in the Police Force. On the allegation that he had intentionally concealed the facts within his knowledge in a departmental inquiry relating to the death of a person by a head constable, he was served with a show-cause notice by the Superintendent of Police. He submitted a reply and was also heard in person. His explanation was found unsatisfactory and he was dismissed from service. He filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police but without any success. He filed a representation before the Inspector- General of Police but that too failed. He then preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. This was dismissed on the ground of limitation. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Before the Tribunal the petitioner sought condonation of delay by claiming credit for the time he had spent in pursuing his representation before the I.-G. The learned Tribunal declined to give him allowance for the said purpose. Considering that the order of the D.I.-G. On his appeal was final and that no representation lay to I.-G. As a matter of right we can find no legal error in the view taken by the learned Tribunal. The petition is 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.
Cited by 5 cases
- GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. and others vs FARMAN ALI and others 2005 SCMR 774
- GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. Versus FARMAN ALI 2005 PLC(CS) 737
- AHMED BARCH vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN STEEL, KARACHI 2006 PLC (C.S.) 993
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE 2004 SCMR 18
- SHAMSHAD HUSSAIN vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2008 PLC (C.S.) 408