Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 436 1982 SLD 436 1982 SCMR 702
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 157 of 1980, decision dated: 20-04-1982.(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Punjab Administrative Tribunal, Lahore dated 31-10-1974 in Appeal No. 241 of 1974)
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C.J., SHAFIUR REHMAN AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ
Ahmad Saeed Kirmani, Advocate and Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. M. A. Bajwa, Advocate and Ejaz A. Khan, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents.

MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN

VS

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MIANWALI AND 2 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Police Department Delegation of Powers Rules, 1958---Item 9 [as amended by Notifications from time to time] read with Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 177(1)(a)-Removal from service­ Delegation of authority-Reliance placed on P L D 1961 Lah. 808 to contend that appellant having been appointed by Deputy inspector­ General of Police he could not be dismissed by Superintendent of Police-Decision referred to having been passed when constitutional dispensation different as in Art. 177(1) (a) of 1962 Constitution appellant could be removed from service by an authority subordinate-to appointing authority if expressly empowered to do so by an authority not so subordinate and such delegation of authority having been made to Superintendent of Police by Item 0 of Delegation of Powers Rules, 1958 as amended from time to time-No exception, held, could therefore be taken to dismissal order passed by Superintendent of Police. -­[Civil services]. Muhammad Afzal Khan v. Superintendent of Police, District Montgomery and others P L D 1961 Lah. 808 distinguished. (b) West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960- ----S. 6-A (5)-Time for reply-Period specified in r. 6-A (5) being one not exceeding one month, no violation of rule, held, committed with regard to time while giving 7 days for submission of reply-Appellant having himself delayed submission of his reply no exception could be taken to order passed-Requirement as to consideration of explana­tion, held further could only be relevant if appellant shown to have been vigilant to send reply as directed within specified time and such requirement could not apply in case explanation not sent at all or where received after expiry of given period.-[Civil services]. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD HALEEM, Actg. C. J.-Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant to examine the question as to whether the S. P. was competent to dismiss him in the background of the earlier decision reported as Muhammad Afzal Khan v. Superintendent of Police, District Montgomery and others (P L D 1961 Lah. 808) in which it was held that it was the D. I -G. Police who alone had such power. The Punjab Administrative Tribunal, while…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492