MUHAMMAD ASHRAF QURESHI versus COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR (JUDICIAL OFFICERS) OF AJ&K JUDICIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT/HIGH COURT OF AZAD J
Sections 2 (b), 3, 5 and 10 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), the 42-year mandatory retirement on the charge of mismanagement, the Supreme Court appellant, who was a civil judge, accused of corruption Proved. , Had essentially retired from the job after issuing show-cause notices and inquiries against them. The appellant did not deny that the alleged acts of misconduct contained in the statement of allegations were in fact true. On three separate occasions, the relevant authorities (Inquiry Officer, Authority and Service Tribunal) agreed that the appellant's explanation and reasoning had been denied. Can't be accepted, the explanation given by the appellant is unacceptable; it is a lame excuse that does not match the legal officer and especially the judicial officer, as a senior civilian. Judge Judgment was a talker and argued well in the inquiry report, while the authority granted the orders after the due diligence applied to the appellant's mind to prove the appellant's alleged discrimination. If there was no question of discrimination in the absence of any evidence, then the appellant's conduct was not only contradictory, nor was there any excuse for ignorance of the legal officer's law. It was not when a common man could claim an excuse for ignorance of the law that way Excuse for how the Judicial Officer may have been available as the appellant had failed to identify any kind of unlawful decision in the appellate service tribunal's appeal. Exclude
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2012
