Find a Lawyer

BRIJ LAL versus PREM CHAND

Sindh Civil Servant (Talent and Discipline) Rules 1973 R 4 Mandatory Retirement Appellant, a police constable, was appointed to take the prisoners under trial in the Additional Sessions Judge's Court, escaping the custody of the prisoner under trial. And a criminal case was registered against them. The department was also prosecuted and was forced to retire from the job on account of negligence. The prisoners were hardened criminals and dangerous persons under trial and their guard constituted an unarmed constable in violation of police rules. The appellant was well acquainted with the procedures and evidence of having a long service. The Inquiry Officer recorded that it was disclosed that the appellant, without hesitation, accepted the detention of the prisoners in the trial and no objection was made by the appellant to any objection. The story given by the appellant was not verified by the evidence recorded by the inquiry officer appellant or else it was not a good record. His reputation was awarded a large / minor penalty by the department and on various occasions the department had already adopted a gentle attitude and his dismissal from the service turned into a mandatory retirement. The service tribunal refused to intervene in the circumstances. inheritance advocates near Kotmomin lawyer