Find a Lawyer

SAAD SALAM ANSARI versus CHIEF JUSTICE OF SINDH HIGH COURT, KARACHI THROUGH REGISTRAR

Rr 4 (1) (b) (iii) and 5 (3) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), a formal inquiry into the removal of section 3b, charges of abuse of power were charged to the court officer. Was. The allegation against the Judicial Officer that he was removed from the job without any formal inquiry was that despite the High Court's order he expressly stated in his response to the Judicial Officer on the execution request that he appear justified. He has no information about the order. The High Court took cognizance of the record in the solicitation petition and proceeded with the request for execution as required by law. The truth of the High Court order cannot be known without recording the statements of the relevant officials or the tenant or their lawyer. In the absence of such evidence, the judicial officer may not be aware of the order of the High Court, in the absence of such evidence, the Judicial Officer cannot be attributed to the extent of the law to be sent by registered post. The order or notice has reached its destination, can be easily raised but the question whether such notice or order was in the knowledge of a particular person or not. A question of fact which, without adding evidence and giving the witnesses an appropriate opportunity for cross-examination and the special occasions for the preparation of evidence in the detention, should be followed by a regular investigation process to prove the allegations of corruption. can go. A dismissal or dismissal can result in major penalties and such an investigation cannot be dismissed under normal circumstances. Regular investigation that condemns the Judicial Officer family advocate from Punch lawyer