Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MUHAMMAD KHALID KHAN versus


The notice of the Dispensary Action Show was addressed to the wrong name and returned with postal confirmation that no person was available with that name. No valid service of the notice is also bound by the mandatory hearing under the rules and the case as per the rules. Remand has been received for further action of. Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), Section 4
1981 P L C (C. S.) 460

[Service Tribunal Punjab]

Present: M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman and One Member

MUHAMMAD KHALID KHAN

Versus

INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Appeal No. 237 of 1979; decided on 30th September, 1980.

Civil service‑

‑‑-Disciplinary action--Show‑cause notice addressed in wrong name and returned with postal endorsement that no person of that name available‑‑-No valid service of notice-‑ Personal hearing mandatory under rules also not afforded‑-‑Consequential order set aside and case remanded for proceeding afresh in accordance with rules‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Ghulam Asghar for Appellant.

H. R. Cheema, Government Pleader for Respondent.

ORDER

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).--

In this case the appellant con tends that the show‑cause notice was sent to him in the name of Khalid Mahmood which was received back with the postal endorsement that there was no person of this name available at the relevant address. The appellant submits that according to. Government record, the name was Muhammad Khalid Khan. Thus the postal endorsement in question could not be treated as valid for the purposes of service of show‑cause notice on the appellant. It was also contended that the D. I. G. did not grant him the personal hearing nor was he summoned to appear before him which) was a clear violation of the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975. Both the contentions have not been denied by the Department. In the circumstances we are of the view that the proceedings against the appellant were not in accordance with law. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the orders of the departmental authorities and remand tae case to S. P., Multan, to proceed afresh in accordance with the provisions of law.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
how to become a advocate from Sihala lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.