Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ILYAS versus POLICE DEPARTMENT

Rr 3 & 4 (1) (b) (iii) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), Section 4 Compulsory Retirement Appeal Upon his arrest, appellant was convicted of corruption / criminal conviction on a charge of culpability. was given. Regular inquiries were made in this matter. Other officials who were co-accused of disciplinary action in that regard were less punished. The appellant contended that the order approved against him was illegal and void because the superintendent could not exercise the police powers. As appellant, the authority came into being with the inspector as a co-accused and according to the law, in the case of senior co-accused, only the authority can pass an order in the case of the appellant and under the law the deputy inspector general police also Can act as In the case of the accused / Section H approved by the DPO / Section P, he was the authority as the appellant as he could not be retained because of non-compliance with the law. Aid / original orders approved by the unqualified authority were set aside and the case authority was received by the relevant authority / DIG for a new and independent decision. pakistani advocates Dinga lawyer