Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD IKRAM versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE) PESHAWAR

Government Employees (Talent and Discipline) Rules 1973 R6 Crimes Against Property (Hood Ordinance Ordinance (VI of 1979), Section 17 (3) Criminal Code of Conduct (V9 1898), Section 179 of Corruption and Misdemeanor) Charges dismissed The senior clerk of the public money appellant at the DE0 office, on the return of the treasury with the employees' cellar, was robbed by an unknown robber who complained to him under section 17 (3). Under the Ordinance 1979, which was arrested by the local police but later released under 1979, the CCP Appellant, however, proceeded on suspicion based on competency and discipline rules. As a result of the volley inquiry, the charge sheet was neither presented to the appellant nor provided a detailed explanation. They can neither be charged nor mention specific penalties that can be imposed on them. In an interesting way, Ted, in which some of the witnesses investigating witnesses, testified after appellant's statement was recorded, but appellant did not get a chance to examine such witnesses from the witnesses. The appellant was asked a question mark in order not to be inspected and to answer various questions, after the common law of the land the inquiry committee does not cover the suspension period of about 11 years but every three The required approval is not received after the month but the applicant's deposit to deposit the money from the bank The competent authority in writing no order nor are any funds allocated to the department to get round safely such a large amount, such carelessness family advocate from Toru lawyer