Find a Lawyer

SECRETARY (FUNDS) ECONOMIC ADVISOR versus IMTIAZ MEHMOOD

Removal of Sections 3, 5 and 10 from employment provided that the appellant's absence of the opportunity for a hearing includes the delivery of relevant records to the appellant for preparation of defense and cross-examination of such conviction. Will be. An inappropriate order cannot withstand the trial of a judicial scrutiny service. The tribunal dismissed the defective order and restored the appellant to employment and directed the appointing of a new inquiry officer to conduct the DOO inquiry and to provide copies of the documents sought by the appellant.

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2009

• MUHAMMAD NASEER v. SAJID HUSSAIN 2009 SCMR 784
• Mst. NOOR HABIB v. SALEEM RAZA 2009 SCMR 786
• SINDH HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION through Secretary v. FEDERATION OF PAKSITAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad 2009 PLD 789
• Syed QASIM SHAH v. State 2009 SCMR 790
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES ZONE-II, LAHORE v. LAHORE CANTT. COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, LAHORE 2009 PTD 799
• REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION v. Haji GUL HASSAN 2009 CLD 802
• Haji PAIO KHAN v. SHER BIAZ 2009 SCMR 803
• M.B. ABBASI v. State 2009 SCMR 808

All Supreme Court judgments of 2009 →

patent advocate from Kachhi/Bolan lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes