Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHATTAK, EX-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, PESHAWAR versus CHIEF JUSTICE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR THROUGH REGISTRAR

Rr 3 (c) (iii), 4 (1) (b) (ii) and 5 (4) of the Northwest Frontier Province Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal Act (VIII of 1991), Section 5 Mandatory Retirement Appeal Sentencing Service Was punished. After filing a charge sheet and inquiry against them, the appellant has been accused of appointing the Additional Sessions Judge in his Inquiry Report to the Inquiry Officer to apologize to the appellant. The petitioner illegally pleaded guilty, but the authorized officer did not agree to the inquiry The officer served the appellant with a final showcase notice, offering a personal hearing. The authorized officer recommended the appellant's virtual retirement and the authorized authority imposed the mandatory retirement penalty, according to which the empowered officer felt that the key entry of the accused officer / appellant was certainly well-known. The reputation of being corrupt said that the Authority had unanimously agreed on the admission, inquiring into the North West Frontier Provincial Government Servants (Performance and Discipline) Rules, 1973, with a mandatory retirement penalty of 5 (4). No inbuilt mechanism was identified for the officer to be fully bound to the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer because in such a situation, when there was evidence of the change recorded by the Inquiry Officer by the Inquiry Officer in written responses Appellant's statement was found to be flawed and up in written responses Keeping a statement Ltd, will reduce the scope of the authorized officer's powers. Appellant guilty; this is certainly fair attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Daulat Pur lawyer