CHIEF SECRETARY, SINDH, KARACHI AND ANOTHER versus HAJI MUHAMMAD PUNJAL NAREJO
RR 3 (a) (b) (c) and ()) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 212 (3) Two-year increment prevention corruption All four appoint new individuals while banning new appointments. The service tribunal alleges that the information on the ban permanently assigned such penalties. There was nothing available to record that a letter containing instructions on banning fresh appointments was circulated at all levels, and this government employee, despite knowing it, appointed appointments in violation. had gone. To bring the matter under scrutiny and corruption, nothing was available to show that a public servant, who was eligible for such appointments, had served in such a deliberate position during a ban period, So nothing was available to show it. , Shall not be liable for action against him for committing misconduct. The Supreme Court dismissed the application and denied the leave to appeal
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
property advocates from Gujrat lawyer
