Find a Lawyer

MUMTAZ ALI RAJPAR versus REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Section 3B Remarks of the Government Employees of Sindh (Talent and Discipline), Rules, 1973, Rr 3 (1) (b) and 4 Subordinate Judicial Services, for the Termination of Appeals of the Service Tribunal Appellant A request was made to remove the negative remarks listed in the AR. The relevant year, in connection with the delay in the negative comment, claiming that they were illegal in the 90-day period and that the remarks were not rejected by any of the material. The user's feedback was postponed, because only negative interactions delayed. Remarks in the ACR, there is no reasonable basis for the dismissal of the same representation made by the appellant and appropriate consideration and the opportunity for personal hearing were provided to the appellant, Edward recorded in the appellant's ACR. Remarks were based on content that was available with?. The Special Complaint regarding the Reporting Officer as well as the Counseling Officer was on record regarding the integrity of the appellant Merrill because before this the applicant had adopted a soft view in the disciplinary proceedings, so he was not entitled to a clean slate. As far as its ACR statements are concerned that the appellant had ample opportunity to dispose of his representation, along with reference to the negative remarks of the order approved by the competent authority, , Was reasonable and legally valid, requiring no intervention. \ r \ n immigration advocates contact from Sherani lawyer