Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE, N.W.F.P., PESHAWAR
This petition is directed against the order dated 13-6-1994 passed by the Chairman, N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal for non-prosecution and subsequently rejected the application for its restoration due to lack of satisfactory explanation for the non-appearance of the petitioner and his counsel. The core legal question revolves around whether sufficient cause was shown for the restoration of the dismissed service appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner failed to provide a proper explanation or justification for the absence before the Service Tribunal, and noted that the petitioner had also been removed from service after due inquiry on separate charges. Consequently, the Court found no legal infirmity in the impugned order requiring interference. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Whether an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution by a Service Tribunal can be restored without a satisfactory explanation for the absence?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with an order of a Service Tribunal declining to restore an appeal when no proper cause is shown?
- Is leave to appeal warranted when the petitioner fails to justify the non-appearance of both the appellant and counsel?
ORDER
MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.---This petition is directed against the order dated 13-6-1994 passed by the learned Chairman, N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Service Tribunal was dismissed. On 17-6-1993 neither the petitioner appeared nor his counsel. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. On 21-9-1993 an application for restoration of the appeal was moved before the Service Tribunal alongwith second application for condoning delay. The case came up for hearing before the learned Chairman, N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal on 13-6-1994. The learned Chairman dismissed the application on the ground that satisfactory explanation to justify restoration of the appeal was not given by the petitioner.
2.We have heard the petitioner in person. He was not in a position to give proper explanation for not attending the Tribunal on 17-7-1993. He also could not satisfy us as to why his counsel remained absent on the aforesaid date. We have gone through the impugned order and the daily diary maintained by the Service Tribunal. There is nothing wrong with impugned order which may require interference of this Court. Besides, it was brought to our notice that the petitioner was removed from service after due inquiry on some other charges. There is no merit in the petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. 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.
Judges on this bench
- Manzoor Hussain Sial807 judgments
- Mir Hazar Khan Khoso453 judgments