Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HANIF versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR

Section 3, 5 and 10 of the Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 mandatory retirement increased fines for appellant Appellant, who allegedly developed hepatitis B, for 120 days' sick leave. Application, which the appellant reapplied for a vacation extension. For a further 90 days, in which the appellant was again asked for a further six months on leave on the basis of medical certificate, upon checking the authenticity of the medical certificate, it was found to be false and fake and the authority The vacation was not approved and the appellant did not report for duty immediately to report the instruction duty and sent another application for a 180 day grant, which the authority rejected and the appellant discharged. Appellant was eventually issued a show cause notice to the appellant and after inquiry against him, a fine was imposed. The attachment was levied by the Authority for extension of leave was found to be fraudulent and fraudulent, which amounts to misconduct by the appellant; in the circumstances there has been a serious act of fraud and forgery. Compiled which demanded a major penalty under removal from the service (Special Powers)) The Department of Ordinance, 2000, initially issued a mandatory retirement notification, which was later dismissed from service in the typographical error. Was changed to increase the penalty once imposed The authority was not granted, the appellant's defense to the appellant's defense without giving reasons and providing the appropriate opportunity list of supreme court advocates from Trinda Mohd Pannah lawyer