Find a Lawyer

RAJA FARRUKH YOUNUS versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE OFFICE (CPO), AT KARACHI

RR 3, 4 (1) (b) (iv) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), the major penalty for dismissal of section 4 on employment (which serves as the Sub Inspector of Police). Was performing). Due to their alleged interference in criminal cases, negligence, misappropriation of public office and absence of record of duty, the Department HO has shown that in a short period of 7 months, the appellant has received more than 6 show-cause notices. Issued, but there was nothing to indicate that if the showcase notice was ever presented to the appellant then in the absence of positive proof of service of the showcase notice, the appellant failed to produce the answer No matter, obviously Appellant was not provided with a complete, fair. And the reasonable opportunity of self-defense will be of no legal value to any order affecting the rights of the parties, in violation of the principles of natural justice, even if the circumstances were violated. , A final showcase notice was issued to an appellant which was also a necessary and there is no flexibility to be provided. Imported orders were settled and the case authorities were remanded to initiate departmental proceedings against the appellant after providing them with a complete, fair. And the perfect opportunity to listen, purely. In accordance with the law law firms from Lala rukh lawyer