Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASLAM versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL PAKISTAN RAILWAYS POLICE G.P.O., LAHORE

Section 3 and 5 Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 Pakistan Railway Personnel 1, CL (iv) was dismissed after issuing a notice on appeal against the appellant, but on some charges he was dismissed. Without holding a grudge against The evidence was merely to support the appellant's allegations of having a permanent reputation for corruption and refusing to be an effective employee. To prove this, officials say the two charges rely on six minor convictions, but no details of such petty convictions were given in the statement. The charges say that the appellant had earlier been convicted during the period from 1974 to 1994. According to the Pakistan Railway Personal Manual KCL (iv), minor penalties should be eliminated under the rules of E-performance and discipline if employees do not commit any irregularities. The last sentence given to the appellant for two years after the expiry of his conviction was in 1994 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in November 2001, which meant that the appellant was given The modest executions had already ended, which the appellant had already suffered and which had become a matter of the past and closed, could not be used to wax the accused twice. The principle of double jeopardy was punished by the appellant, in the circumstances cannot be used as a serious basis of evidence because the appellant was not accused of mismanagement after the year 1998. An action or error was committed and thus he lost his minor conviction. immigration advocates from Gojra lawyer