Find a Lawyer

PROF. DR. MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE ASIM AND OTHERS versus UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, LAHORE THROUGH REGISTRAR

Sections 3 and 5 constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 212 (3) of the Punjab Removal Service (Special Powers) Under the Ordinance 2000, the Inquiry Officer inquiry commenced on the charges of compulsory retirement appointment, corruption, corruption, fraud and illegalization. had gone. Upon the selection of a public servant, a retired judge of the High Court has been appointed as an inquiry officer, who, after investigation, recommended the dismissal of the civil servant and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 illegally obtained by him. , The authorized authority imposed mandatory retirement and collection penalty. The service tribunal of Rs. 1,00,000 partially allowed the appeal of the public servant and set aside a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 while the necessary retirement was maintained by the public servant that the inquiry officer was elevated to. Should have been the officer in charge. Civil servants cannot object to the appointment of a former High Court judge as a civil servant in comparison to a civil servant. Such an appointment was not appropriate or legal as it violated the provisions of the Termination Service (Special Powers) Ordinance from Punjab. Was violated, the appointment of a 2000 Inquiry Officer was made on the basis of a public servant's request, the inquiry process was fair, transparent and. According to the law, the inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry, statements of a large number of witnesses were recorded, the public servant allowed not only cross-examination of the witnesses, but also allowed evidence to be presented in his defense. , The civil servant, in the circumstances, was withheld from his challenging words the appointment of such an inquiry officer. tax advocates from Jacobabad lawyer