Find a Lawyer

AHMED NAWAZ versus SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL, RAWALPINDI

Section 3 Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) dismissed the appellant from section 4 for the negligence and misconduct of the appellant, the Superintendent Central Jail had sentenced him to dismiss but the DIG Prisons Appeal. It is said that the legal status of the service should be punished in a compulsory retirement. According to the policy letter prepared by the appellant and acknowledged by the authorities, the Superintendent Central Jail started proceedings against the officers in B section 1 to 5 under the Punjab Security of Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000. The option to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the appellant in section 7 was, in the circumstances, contrary to the policy letter of the Central Prison as a Superintendent, to initiate or punish the appellant's proceedings. There was no authority in the matter, multiple orders were set aside, the appellant was reunited. Was reinstated in the case and o Remand was received by the authority to conduct a de novo inquiry into the matter f Removal Ordinance, 2000 from the Punjab Service (Special Powers). immigration advocates phone number from Miran Shah lawyer