Find a Lawyer

MEHBOOB AHMAD SOOMRO versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD

Section 5 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional petition mandatory Retirement Inquiry Officer recommendations Was that the competent authority did not follow the recommendation of the inquiry. In the absence of any allegation against the officer's legal status inquiry officer, it cannot be said that the inquiry officer needs to be re-examined by the inquiry officer and the inquiry officer's report was purely a question that was not entertained. It can be decided in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Authorities were not obliged to follow the Inquiry Officer's recommendation and the maximum punishment provided under the law could be given by the authorized authority, which was executed by the authority, the inquiry proved that the applicant was required to open and obtain a fake account. Was responsible for approval. n They were charged and charged with fraudulent accounts and the applicant did not identify any illegal in the inquiry proceedings which resulted in the order passed by the High Court against the applicant. I refuse to interrupt situations r \ n

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM v. State 2010 PCrLJ 907
• Mst. AFROZE alias AFSHAN v. State 2010 MLD 907
• ZOHAIB HASAN v. PROVINCE OF SINDH 2010 YLR 908
• SHAHEEN MULTI FOODS (PVT.) LTD. (FLOUR MILLS) through Chief Executive v. ABDUL HAFEEZ RAJPUT 2010 CLC 908
• SADIQ BROTHERS v. II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KARACHI South 2010 MLD 913
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM v. State 2010 PCrLJ 914
• M. MUHAMMAD SHAFI & CO. v. A. REHMAN ENTERPRISES 2010 CLD 920
• Dr. MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR YOUSFANI v. SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION/CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD 2010 PLC(CS) 920

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

jobs for advocates from Mingora lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes