MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN versus ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF E-IN-C\'S BRANCH GHQ, RAWALPINDI
Section 9 Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 Civil Servant (Serenity) Rules, 1993, R3 (c) Appellant was excluded because of his sentence, while his junior He was promoted as an appellant, though. Then, more than a year after his junior development, he appealed with the prayer that he be allowed to serve as a civil servant (Seniority) Rules, a 1993 statutory minor sentence, such as censorship. Seniority should be assigned under 3 (c). , The award of fines falls into the domain of the authority authorized to punish rather than the Public Promotion Committee to discriminate to justify a discrimination, censorship was a minor penalty and the law was a There was a slight penalty. Will not stand in the way of promotion Generally, the record of the appellant was such that under the law, there was a lack of fitness on the standard of application and promotion was inviolable. It was not against the elected post that the respondents were promoted. Yet for the last five years, one of the ACRs was missing. The respondent, although a slightly better record, had progress on seniority-less fitness and appealed. The defendant was also entitled to his development, based on his record, except that the adjournment of the sensational appellant was changed and the authorities were instructed to promote the appellant for execution from that date. Consider giving and determining their seniority in accordance with RK 3 (c). Civil Servant's (Sincerity) Rules, 1993 \ r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
