Find a Lawyer

BEHRAM KHAN versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND

Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973 Section 4 to show that appellants were dismissed, dismissed from police constables, charged with cowardice and cowardice when confronted with the police party and for the illegal operation of ammunition. There is no evidence on record as to how and in what way appeals have been shown. The cowardly incident took place in complete confusion and the whole situation was terrifying; it is difficult for witnesses to say if any of them saw the appellant firing or did not slide, the appellants (not even a bullet was shot). Proof of allegations of misuse of ammunition, which had to be proved by positive evidence, the inquiry officer's finding makes it clear that the only evidence to punish the appellants was the statement of the armature officer who carried the rifle with his certificate. There was no reason to support it. The appellant was not used in the firing because of the incident which is expert evidence, only correctional value, evidence of armorer alone, in the absence of any other positive evidence, could not be maintained on appeal. As such, he and his family were deprived of their livelihood by the Department, failing to prove that the appellant was charged with misdemeanor and consequently on the misdemeanor use of ammunition on charges of cowardice. Must also fail online advocate from Blitang lawyer