Find a Lawyer

KHURSHID ALAM versus E.D.O. (EDUCATION) SKP

Article 212 (3) was the removal of a service charge against a public servant from corruption that he joined the public school as a teacher in 1997 \ M \ though his posting was made on the spot \ W \ petitioner's argument That he had joined the job as per instructions issued by the competent authority \ M \ 's duty, that he served there for about ten ten years without complaint. That he withdrew his salary against the said office and it was not feasible to prosecute the accused and that any senior official with whose consent he worked there was accused of misconduct. Was not prosecuted. Through the court, to consider whether the allegations of mismanagement can be substantiated despite the fact that for ten years neither the authorized authority nor the drawing and distribution officer Has raised an objection to the posting mentioned above. \ r \ n \ r \ n

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2010

• MAP RICE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED v. SHAKEEL AHMED 2010 PLC(CS) 216
• Haji AMANULLAH v. MUNIR AHMED 2010 SCMR 222
• UNITED BANK LIMITED v. Mst. JAMEELA MUMTAZ 2010 SCMR 229
• EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GEPCO LIMITED v. LIAQAT ALI 2010 SCMR 237
• COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, MULTAN- v. HOLIDAY INN, MULTAN 2010 SCMR 241
• UNITED WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. WORKERS\' UNION LABOUR WELFARE CENTRE v. UNITED WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. 2010 PLC(CS) 246
• ULFAT HUSSAIN v. State 2010 SCMR 247
• PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED through General Manager v. MUHAMMAD ZAHID 2010 SCMR 253

All Supreme Court judgments of 2010 →

advocate for immigration from Shangla lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes