Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ARIF SIDDIQUI versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH

Rr. 3, 4 (b) (ii) and 5 (4) (b) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), the punishment for Section 4 compulsory retirement is a compulsory retirement punishment after the charge sheet has been laid on a public servant. Given and conducting inquiries on the allegation that the working plots of the approval of the Society authorized authority under R5 (4) (b) of the Sindh Civil Servant (FCCC), acting as the Administrator of the Cooperative Housing Society. Some fake and double allotments have been made. The Regulations, 1973 was a situation in which a public servant, with the cooperation of the Chief Minister, was presented to give the Adviser to the Chief Minister a major punishment; Served as the person who accepted the approval. Due to a violation of the constitution, the High Court declared the case reported as PLD 2000 Karachi 333 without illegal and legal authority and also the orders passed by the adviser. Claiming to be without legal authority and without any legal effect was advisable in the capacity of the competent authority to approve a mandatory retirement major penalty to a public servant and the appeal of the quorum non-judicial department to the Chief Secretary Should have been given. The Chief Minister was given a huge penalty to the government employees with the approval of the Minister, but the decision was made by the Chief Secretary, whose position was lower than the Minister's order on the department's appeal, without any legal authority from the Chief Secretary. Both verdicts were approved by the service tribunal by the unqualified authorities criminal advocate from Ghotki lawyer