Find a Lawyer

SUO MOTU CASE NO.21 OF 2007 versus

Section 4 Regulations of Government Employees (Performance and Discipline), 1973, R5 (1) EstCode (2000 Edition), Senior No. 85 (2) (B) and Senior No. 126 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 184 (3) ) After the expiry of three months of self-mutilation by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court directed the authorities to exercise disciplinary proceedings against the civil servants, despite not having a period of three months. So the proceedings were completed and the matter was not kept. According to Srinagar No. 85 (2) (b) of the Asteriskod, 2000 Edition, the authority to approve the continuation of the suspension, prior to the authorization, to maintain a continuation of the compulsory leave or suspension after a period of three months, again upon termination. Authorization of approval is required. A civil servant who was placed under suspension or forced to go on leave for a period of three months will be considered to be rehabilitated until the end of the three months of approval of the Authority. The employee continued under suspension or was on leave; no such authorization was obtained by the competent authority; such suspension order was issued under the Assistant (2000 Edition) Series 126, against the civil servant. Has been placed, there can be no further dispensary proceedings. The suspension should have been finalized within two months of the date of suspension; if in any case it was not possible to finalize the proceedings of the department against the civil servant within two months, then the matter should be reported to the Secretary's Establishment. Don't finish it. A similar clause was stated in R5 (1) of the Proceedings of the Government Employees (Talent and Discipline) Rules, 1973. criminal advocate from Qasba Gujrat lawyer