Find a Lawyer

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

RR 3 (b) and 4 (1) (b) (iv) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 212 (3) demanding termination of employment after the applicant issued the show cause notice and investigated against them. had gone. He was accused of corruption and misconduct after receiving an inquiry against the applicant through his Deputy Qaid Inquiry Officer who was unlawfully released and, on the occasion of the applicant's hearing, he was convicted by any of the major criminal authorities. Implementation is recommended. No legal or factual weakness has been identified or insisted by the applicant in the service, whose overwhelming evidence on record indicates that the applicants were corrupt and corrupt. The allegations of the year 1997 proved to be AC without any reason for the applicants. It was also pointed out in 1999 that the applicant was declared corrupt and had a bad reputation because of his mismanagement or corruption premium, which was considered to be the highest degree of disqualification of a judicial officer who could not be allowed to commit corruption. In view of allegations of corruption related to No, there was no basis for changing the mandatory retirement from dismissal. Beyond doubt against the applicant divorce advocates from Bolan lawyer