Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL SATTAR VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, LAHORE And Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Saad Saood Jan, S. A. Nusrat Title:ABDUL SATTAR vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through ADDITIONAL
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, LAHORE And Other Case No.: Civil Petition No.126 of 1984 Case No.69/1802 Date of Judgment:1987-02-14 Reported As: 1987 SCMR 745 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER S. A. NUSRAT, J.-- This petition is from the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 21-11-1983 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, inter alia, as time-barred. 2. The petitioner, while posted on duty was found in the state of intoxication and was arrested and a case was registered against him under section 4/24/77 of the Excise Ordinance at Police Station, Yakki Gate, Lahore. After due service of show-cause notice on the aforesaid allegation and calling upon him as to show cause why one or more major penalties as prescribed under the rules may not be imposed upon him, he was dismissed from service by an order dated 4-10-1978. His appeal against the order of dismissal was dismissed on 15-1-1979 by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range. His revision/ mercy petition was also dismissed by the Inspector-General of Police on 25-11-1979. Contemporaneously the petitioner was also prosecuted under the Excise Ordinance but was acquitted by the Magistrate on the ground that the prosecution had failed to produce any witness in spite of repeated attempts. The petitioner thereafter, again moved the Inspector --General of Police of Punjab and his representation was rejected on 31-8-1980. Another mercy petition revision petition filed by him was also rejected by the Inspector-General of Police on 7-1-1982. The petitioner having thus failed in the second round of his representations, filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal which was hopelessly time-barred as from the orders passed in 1979 on his appeal and revision. The Tribunal, in the circumstances found, and rightly so, that the petitioner had only one right of appeal and revision and there was no provision of filing any further appeal or revision in the matter which was an exercise in futility and thereby the period
---
## Page 2
of limitation could not be extended. The appeal was thus dismissed as time-barred. This finding of the learned Tribunal is unexceptionable. The petition is devoid of any force and is dismissed.