Find a Lawyer

MAQBOOL ELAHI versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB

Regulation 21 (1) Punjab Civil Servants (Qualification and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R13 Intra Court Appeal Retention of Constitutional application against the retirement of a civil servant was rejected, before the competence of the Appeal Division Division Bench. It was challenged on the basis that the Director General of the LDA had been ordered to submit an unremarkable retirement order, before the Division Bench of the High Court entered Punjab Civil Servants (Talent and Discipline) Rules 1975. What can be done, will be applicable to the services under the Lahore Development Authority. But according to R13, the appeal will only lie against a government employee's imposition of a fine. The Retired Retired Order was not the result of any allegation against the employee nor was his service resulting in any disciplinary proceedings or termination under the penalty order, Reglin 21 (1), Lahore Development Authority (Appointment and Services) (1978), which speaks of no penalties as a result of any forfeiture proceedings but provides that after the expiry of more than 25 years, the employee of the authority Retired, therefore, was quite isolated and indispensable. Retirement was implicated as a disciplinary measure, so it was objected to not maintaining an appeal, therefore, the appeal under hearing was competent under Section 3, the Law Reform Ordinance, 1972. best advocate from Chowk Maitla lawyer