Find a Lawyer

RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE JAVAID versus LAHORE HIGH COURT

Section 5 Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, Array 3 (b) (c) and 7 (1) (6) Appeal Judicial Officer was dismissed from service charge against the appellant on duty. As a judge, the entertainment case was, therefore, entrusted to him. The former person was ordered within one month on the basis of a fake report in their own court and on behalf of the processor server refusing to serve summons to the defendant. Appellant guilty and recommended fine before the Inquiry Officer before the Inquiry Officer to support the allegations before the Inquiry Officer agreed with the inquiry officer's report and imposed penalties on the Chief Justice and the High Court judges. The defendant was instructed to appear before another High Court judge for a personal hearing, which, in support of the opinion of the inquiry officer and the authorized officer, confirmed the fine. As a duty judge during the winter holidays, working by the appellant in the relevant leisure history will not be a crime nor is there any allegation of irregularities or illegality that she was not living at the address given, this record On the contrary, if the court was capable of passing the previous party decree, it could not have been the process of passing the previous party order. There is no evidence on record to declare any acts of misconduct or corruption to be unjustified, nor did the appellant gain unlawful benefits from the plaintiff, nor was he able to approve the decree within a month's time. It is likely that the Inquiry Officer process server had already defended its report. The plaintiff refused to seek summons registration advocate from Shankiari lawyer