Find a Lawyer

SOHAIL IQBAL versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB

Punjab Civil Servants (Qualification and Discipline) Rules 1975 RR 2 (1) (B), 6 (4), 7A, 8 and 18 Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), Section 4D Novo Inquiry Service Appealing to the Tribunal Order Legislative Secretary Agriculture directed the Department of Agriculture, using the amending power under R18, to instruct the Secretary that despite the rules being disclosed, the Secretary, in spite of these laws, Agriculture directed that it be authorized by security to impose minor penalties under Punjab Government Employees (Qualifications and Discipline) Rules, 1975. It was never reported under R6 (4) or R7A for eligibility for the rules of an inquiry secretary who was appointed by the Punjab Government Employees (Talent and Discipline) Rules 1975 R2 (L) (B). Was under authority. Can't disagree with the search for a competent officer and can order a de novo inquiry on only two situations. First, when the action was reported against him under R6 (4), it contained recommendations for major penalties and secondly, when the action was sent to him under R: 7A. So it was said that with the recommendation to impose large penalties or leave. In cases of operation never authorized by public officers, they shall be governed by R6 (4) under Government servants under the Rules of Rule 1975 (Rules and Discipline) Rules 1975 or R7A. No opportunity was born. Under the R8, the novo inquiry was equally guaranteed by the respondent's authority under R18 to ask for modification options available to the government. The reason for these rules is that the secretary himself was an authority best advocate from Adda Shaiwala lawyer