Find a Lawyer

FIDA HUSSAIN JAVED versus DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB

R4 (1) (b) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), Section 4 constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 212 (3) forced the retirement and recovery of money from the applicants and two. Other officers based on the evidence collected during the inquiry, the Service Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the applicants, but the other officers' appeals were accepted, however, because of the notice given and the publication in the press. Deliberately avoided participating in disciplinary proceedings. The subjective assessment made by the competent authority regarding his performance had essentially retired, which was not found on the board, such assessment came under the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent authority, the department The investigation resulted in the charge of embezzlement, which was not otherwise. It is possible without the co-operation of the applicants, who signed the documents with regard to O. The dependence of the unspecified wheat factum is a question of fact, which was determined by the competent authority after a comprehensive investigation, which was resolved. The service tribunal had taken the record against the other two officers, but they were denied the charge. As a matter of sheer discrimination, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners and refused to allow these two other officers to appeal with the request of the directive as the decision of the service tribunal passed in their favor. (Do not appear according to the evidence). Was collected during the inquiry against them on the basis of which such applicant was fined) Do not set aside property advocate from FR Peshawar lawyer