Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AKMAL versus EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (EDUCATION), SIALKOT

4, 15, 17 and 20 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act (XIII of 1974), Section 21 (2) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), the termination of the appeal of section 4 service fresh inquiry fresh against the appellant and the inquiry. Investigation conducted The officer in his report recommended that the appellant be regularized and during this period the appellant could be considered as unpaid leave, the authority accepted the approval of the inquiry officer, his service was terminated. His services were later terminated and the interim period was found to be unpaid. However, the appellate authority, however, through an unwanted order mainly demands that the fresh inquiry was not properly conducted, that the appellate authority is entitled to remand only if the appellate authority has filed an order in the Punjab R.S. In terms of 15, the appeal was filed. Appellant did not challenge the imposition of fines against the Government Employees (Performance and Discipline) Rules, 1999 because he had already applied for the removal of Tude by section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Representation was filed by the appellant to challenge the interference treatment as a leave without pay because his appeal was not filed by the appellant to challenge the imposition of penalty. Civil Servants were made under R15. (Competency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 compe 1999 Compe was not eligible because it stands with the Constitutional Authority Appeal Authority, in which case it was in accordance with the Punjab Civil Servant's (Discipline and Discipline) Rules, 1999 R17 Could not exercise the options under which the lawsuit Rema best advocate from Tall lawyer