Find a Lawyer

GHULAM RASOOL RANJHA versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, LAHORE

Section 5 Punjab Civil Servants (Talent and Discipline) Rules, 1975, Rule 3 (b) and 4 (1) (b) (iv) Termination of service of Article Pakistan (1973), Article 212 (3) was fine. After issuing a showcase notice and inquiring against him on charges of corruption and corruption, the person was indicted that he had been illegally released by the Naib Qasid Inquiry Officer after an inquiry against the applicant and no Is also recommended to be implemented. The main criminal authority, after confirming the applicant's chances of hearing, was dismissed from the job, no legal or factual weakness was identified or insisted by the applicant. Irrelevant evidence beyond the evidence on the record suggests that the allegations of corruption and misconduct against the applicants have been proven. For any reason, AC Rupe of the petitioner from 1997 to 1999 also indicated that the applicant is well known for being corrupt and having bad reputation Petitioner could not be given any premium for his mismanagement or corruption. What was considered a high degree of disqualification of a judicial officer, which could not be allowed, there was no basis for the conversion of the sentence into a mandatory retirement. In view of allegations of corruption related to corruption, which was proved on suspicion against the petitioner pakistani advocates Ubaro lawyer