Find a Lawyer

SUMANDER SHAH versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE

Police Rules 1934, Rr 16 1 & 16 2 Mandatory Retirement Appellant was employed as a foot constable and was essentially retired by the Senior Superintendent of Police but by the Deputy Inspector General's Deputy Inspector General of Police Order. They were restored, which was received by the Senior Superintendent of Police for compliance. And after being subject to certain conditions on the line officer it is confirmed that the applicant should be transferred from the line police to a particular police station or no leave can be given without his permission, senior superintendent of police. K's order showed that he was not happy with the appellant's recovery more than when he deliberately and delayed the execution of the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police and subjected him to the self-imposed conditions that the appellant's new terms And the facts of the imposition of the terms when posted elsewhere in the police service. It showed a personal grudge against the appellant and the TK order, which was unfortunately transferred by the appellant. The appellant refused to comply with the order of the Senior Superintendent of Police and applied to a Deputy Inspector General of Police in which he allegedly used inappropriate language and made derogatory remarks against the officers and requested. To be investigated by some impartiality. The Senior Superintendent of Police and the DIG Held ordered the Inquiry Officer Appellant to retire again, it was not a legal law that was approved by the Senior Superintendent of Police under which he ordered the retirement of the Appellant. Because he solicitors from Jaranwala lawyer