ABDUL HAMEED KHAN NIAZI versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB
Articles 5 and 6 constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 1212 (3) mandatory retirement on allegations of corruption and bad reputation of public servants, all points raised in the petition were dealt with by the service tribunal and their decision was rightly referred to the service tribunal. Was done in observation. According to this power, the number of defense witnesses was much higher than the prosecution's witnesses, but it was not always the number of witnesses who had the weight of the authority but the quality of evidence that ultimately decided the fate of the case. Such was the observation of the service tribunal. Word-of-fact because the tribunal dealt with all legal points while dealing with the appeal and appreciated the entire evidence on the basis of the witnesses, leaving no room for any concern that either the applicant could hear. Didn't go or there was some false advertising. Petition was dismissed as evidence or some important evidence was ignored
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
