SOHAIL KHAN versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD
4 (a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 forcible confinement of two years \ Approved Service Appellant, who was Operator Constable, under these charges, when he was appointed as Operator, two years. An approved service was punished for a felony. A senior officer refused to comply with the official responsibility. That he left government duty without the officer's knowledge or legal permission. That at one point he fired at a government pistol during official duty and he was reluctant to obey the orders of the seniors, which showed his unruly mind, disobedience, irresponsibility and indiscriminate attitude. Appellant was taken to another city by an officer for whom he was selected. The trainer who was with her for the training charge at the institute did not want to be with her while the appellant refused to perform duty or was reluctant to pay duty at another station, legally appellant. Was not guaranteed, could not be denied in connection with seeking permission from the officer who was posted and replaced by another operator, especially when regular. There was no inquiry, which could confirm the truth of his statement, so the appellant was fired by the superintendent. The dint was resolved by the police. , The appellant did not take any illegal action or violated any of the rules. The sentence of legal punishment was not passed against the appellant; the penalty which was given under the invalid order was set aside. r \ n
Related judgments — Federal Service Tribunal, 2012
