Find a Lawyer

FAYYAZ HUSSAIN versus

Sections 3, 5 and 10 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), Section 4 Service was imposed on the appellant against compulsory retirement from the post of compulsory retirement as notice was taken due to this and the officer's absence. An inquiry was made against him on the charge of presence. Appeal against duty, sheer mismanagement and corruption in the sense of R3 (1) (b) and (c) of the Punjab Removal of Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, has petitioned that it has filed medical for the relevant period. Holiday request. It was believed that the medical certificate could be certified and the requisite orders were never considered on the advice of a competent medical attendant leave request and an order was approved to approve the petition submitted by the appellant inquiry officer. The allegation against the appellant was not proved. Appellant cannot be legally convicted for absentee charges if partially authorized by AU, Toretti should have certified the absence of record and factual misconduct by the Inquiry Officer and the penal authorities. It was concluded that contradictory statements were made that the suspect would be in favor of the beneficiary and that the allegation of allegedly receiving illegal money was raised to some extent. Appellant could not be fined on the basis of conviction for disputed and unverifiable results. The second allegation of unlawfully receiving money by the appellant was not proved because the complainant did not appear to confirm his claim, in the event of a fine without evidence and record verification. advocate for immigration from Tall lawyer