Find a Lawyer

ABDUL MAJEED versus DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT (WORKSHOPS), PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MUGHALPURA, LAHORE

Rr 3, 4 (1) (b) (iii), 5 & 6 Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 Service Appellants were removed from office after issuing a notice of employment because they It is alleged that he has accumulated illegal lodging. Appeal rejected by the appellant from the workers, the appellant filed an appeal before the service tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, on the charge of accepting unlawful pleas, the appellant was sent to the special judge (Central). ) Was prosecuted in court and was acquitted of the charge and the amount of alleged illegal restitution recovered from the appellant was returned to him as the appellant was acquitted by the court of competent jurisdiction. On which he was removed from the job, so the removal order approved against the appellant was filed by the appellant. Af could not maintain the criminal proceedings, although there was no alliance with the court proceedings, but each case had to be decided on its own merits when the charge in the criminal court was precisely the one on which the court proceedings began. Gone, then the judgment of the criminal court on acquittal of the appellant cannot be ignored while in the presence of the criminal court verdict on the illegal proceedings against the appellant in the departmental proceedings. There was no court proceeding initiated against the appellant Even legally, the appellant was deprived of the opportunity to show that the person who allegedly arrested the appellant was falsely accused of corruption. property advocate from Lakki Marwat lawyer