MUHAMMAD ANWAR NASIM versus REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT
Section 5 Punjab Civil Servants (Talent and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R6 (3) The first competent officer withdrew after regular inquiry and recommended the dismissal of the showcase notice, with the effect of the competent officer, De Sabo. Don't agree. The inquiry after a criminal conviction by the appellant's first authorized officer was that a de novo inquiry could not be made on similar charges after the first authorized officer was deported. That the allegations leveled against him were baseless and were not proved by any record, and there was no malice or illicit desire to pass amusement and orders in the cases mentioned in the charge sheet. The notice, however, agreed or agreed with the authorized officer's recommendation that the authorized authority be offered, that there was no restriction in ordering the de novo inquiry and that nothing illegal could be found in this connection with Malala and He gave some additional consideration on his part that the appellant failed to justify a day's pre-arrest bail decision that the request for bail, along with three others connected to it, was already in another additional session. Was handed over to the judge. On administrative grounds, no record was presented in defense to show that the decision of the bailout was the usual of the appellant in such cases. The authorized officer rightly recommended the imposition of a compulsory retirement penalty on the appellant's service on the second charge of passing judgment in civil appeals against the mandatory supply of law. In the above decisions, he withdrew from some of the principles of law and the aggrieved party had his decision
Related judgments — Punjab Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal, 2015
