Find a Lawyer

DILSHAD HUSSAIN versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, SARGODHA RANGE, SARGODHA

Mandatory retirement from SS 3, 5 (4), 9 (A) and 10 Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), Section 4 Service Appellant, which is absent without any leave of duty or unauthorized authority. There, the show was released. The notice does not specify the period of complete absence in the contents of the said showcase notice nor has it been disclosed that the service (special powers) ordinance, 2000, has been regularized under section 5 (4) of the Punjab Removal. The supply of inquiries has been severely punished for the loss of rank. On appeal of the department, after responding to the showcase notice from the appellate authority, it was imposed, from a section I to the head constable, the appellant was severely punished for the mandatory retirement, only by the competent authority. The original sentence was dismissed as a legal weakness because the regular inquiry was not recorded by recording the reasons for such action as required under Section 5 (4) f Removal from the Punjab Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000, Appeal No reason was shown for the defendant to increase the sentence. The legal locals said that there was technically no scope, but the appellant's case is to be sent with the directive that legal proceedings be taken against him, under the provisions of the Removal Services from Punjab. Will be taken strictly under Powers to Ordinance, 2000 Appellant (Special Powers) was restored to the position of A Section I for the purpose of initiating a new disciplinary proceeding under the removal of Punjab from the Ordinance 2000. solicitors from Jampur lawyer