IN THE MATTER OF: MUHAMMAD SABIR JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE versus IN THE MATTER OF: MUHAMMAD SABIR JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
Rr 4 (1) (b) (iii), 4A (2), 5 (4) (b) and the Provo Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), Section 4 Option-to-Option-Option-to-Option Appeal to the Disciplinary Service Tribunal Appellant, who was removed from the job after issuing a showcase notice and providing a hearing, challenged his dismissal order on the basis that he was empowered. The officer who issued the final showcase notice to him was a senior judge at the time, but later, he became chief justice of the high court, and then, using the powers of the authority, appealed. The ex parte order of dismissal against the claimant's claimants had passed that another person could not exercise the authority and authority of the competent officer. The officer authorized to terminate his cause as a judge, who was a senior PUISNE judge at the time of issuing the showcase notice, later became chief justice, had the power to exercise legal restraint and authority as the honoree of the authority of another chief justice. Who could have the jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Action of Authority was spared and the general rule did not apply, especially when no motive, unlawful desire, favoritism or impartiality was charged and it was said that the authority's action was based on valid principles of law. And the appellant was treated fairly and equitably even otherwise the Sindh Civil Servant (Eligibility and Discipline) Rules may exercise authority under sub-rule (2) of R4A of 1973. The competent officer and he can give any guidance to the competent officer as he or she can
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
