Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YAQOOB versus DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, DISTRICT SAHIWAL AND 2 OTHERS

Section 3 and 10 of the Punjab Police (Talent and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R12 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 212 (3) under the overall charge of the Government employee retaining the second amendment before the mandatory retirement department officials Must be retired from the job. Careless and mismanaged government employees preferred the appeal of the department against the penalties imposed by the authorities, which, instead of subdividing the orders of the departmental officials before the service tribunal, the civil servant had made the R12 of the Punjab Police (Utilities and Discipline) Rules 1975. Revision under is preferred. Appeal was also filed by a government employee before the service tribunal, which was dismissed at the time of the ban provided by the public servant, because his appeal before the service tribunal was within the limits because the Punjab Police's R12 The same appeal was filed even after the amendment was rejected. And discipline) Rules, 1975 Government employee could not seek asylum on the basis of the Punjab Police (Qualifications and Discipline) Rules, 1975 R12, and therefore could not avail that Punjab Police (Utilities and Discipline) No such right was granted to the special law revised by the Rules, 1975, as amended. Although the Inspector General had given the police the right to revise the order of the department authority in the circumstances given in the code itself, the accused employee was not found to have any right to refer to the service because of the service. There was a matter of finding the tribunal. With full Punjab Police (Capacity and Discipline) Rules, 1975, along with the provisions to remove Punjab from the Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 famous high court advocate from Rabwah lawyer