Find a Lawyer

AMIN-E-ADAM versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE.

Rr 4 (1) (b) (ii) and 5 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 212 Conduct of inquiry against the appellant on the basis of issuance of show cause notice and declaration of false assessment after compulsory retirement, prior permission of the competent authority Appeal of the department against car purchase, etc., said that there was no risk of punishment, the appellant appealed to the service tribunal for a tile which was dismissed. A member of the service tribunal accepted the appeal filed by the appellant and the censor appellant was reduced to a mandatory retirement sentence and ordered to be reinstated. However, the second member of the service tribunal, however, did not agree to the finding of the first member and the appellant was found guilty of the allegations on his part, the second member dismissing the documentary evidence and rejecting the explanation related to it. Did not provide any clear reason for this action. Applicant's income sources, like jewelry receipts from family settlement, a nd personal savings, without assigning any comprehensible grounds, there was no reason to look suspiciously for the other member and the member was not allowed to look into the matter. There was no right to import your personal information on the facts that such claims were commonly made by corrupt officers. And the disappearances of the other member's income tax investigators were not, on the basis of speculation, and his personal information chairman Service Tribunal, while accepting the other member's version, did not give a reason why these results Upon the discovery / announcement of the first member impact chairman of the search tribunal, the member should have preferred to delete the version of the first member and the second member immigration advocates contact from Warburton lawyer