Al Wakeelo logo

Al Wakeelo

Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty

Initializing Secure Chambers

1990 SCMR 1001

NAZIR AHMAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OKARA and others

Petitioner: NAZIR AHMAD VS Respondent: SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OKARA and others

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan Decision Date: 1989-07-31

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Shafi-ur-Rehman, Saad Saood Jan Title: NAZIR AHMAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OKARA and others Case No.: Civil Petition No, 740 of 1987 Date of Judgment:1989-07-31 Reported As: 1990 SCMR 1001 Result: Petition dismissed

Judgment ORDER ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was a constable on the establishment of the Superintendent of Police at Okara. On the allegation that at the time of joining service he had produced a certificate in which his date of birth had been tampered with, he was served with a show-cause notice. He submitted a written reply and was also heard in person by the Superintendent of Police. His explanation was found unsatisfactory and he was dismissed from service. He preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General which was dismissed. He made a representation to the Inspector-General of Police but this was also filed. He then preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. It was dismissed on the ground of limitation. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court. 2. Under rule 14(5) the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, the order made by the Deputy Inspector-General on the appeal of the petitioner was final. Consequently, the time for filing the appeal before the Tribunal started running against him from the date the order of the Deputy Inspector-General was conveyed to him. It is not disputed that he did not prefer the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed period. However, he sought condonation for the delay by claiming allowance for the time he had spent in pursuing his representation before the Inspector- General. The learned Tribunal declined his prayer and refused to condone the delay. We do not find that the view taken by the learned Tribunal in this regard suffers from any infirmity. The petition is dismissed.

Related Legal Research & Directories