Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD JAMIL versus DEPUTY DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (MALE)

In the R4 Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), the service tribunal appellant was prosecuted on the charge that his appointment as PTC teacher was suspicious and fake and on the order of dated 22 5000. He was dismissed for lying. Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the orders of appointment under the Punjab Civil Servants (Qualification and Discipline) Rules 1975, which has led to the dismissal of the time limit for dismissing him from employment. And also on the merit, the appellant appealed to the service tribunal with the argument that the appellate department was not timely barred by it because it ordered the dismissal of the services of 22 2000 2000 on 29 5 2000. The original appeal was filed against him and that he has proof / proof of receipt of the postage as he says that the Appeal Registered Post Authorities have sent their P.O. Was sent in the opinion. The comments, however, did not explicitly deny that the appellant had never made any representation in the history of 5 any 2000 so as to challenge the unclean orders as ad 22 5 2000 since there was in fact a dispute as to whether the appellant existed. Had made its representation on time, ie after consulting the records of the relevant authority on the case of 29, 2000, the appeal authority was remanded to verify the facts. If it is found that the appellant has filed a timely representation, his departmental appeal will be decided on merit after giving a personal hearing to the appellant. solicitors from Ugoki lawyer