Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MERAJ-UD-DIN versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.IA CORPORATION

Section 4 Mandatory Retirement Disappearances An unauthorized absence from duty for more than ten days Appellant was sent to the U of A for twelve days to receive training in Momentum Computers, but was reported to be forty-eight without the approval of the competent authority. Day stayed there, appellant was shifted from Karachi to Lahore. But he did not report for duty in Lahore and because it was deliberately disobedient and disobeyed the legal orders of the administration. The inquiry officer inquired with the inquiry officer who found the appellant guilty on both charges before the appellant had the opportunity of a personal hearing. Job was informed of compulsory retirement The appellant resisted his transfer order and, by adopting a stubborn attitude, spread unethical interference with the authorities in his representation. The appellant was presented with a copy of the final showcase notice as well as the inquiry report and there was no legal error in the proceedings against him. Appellant attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Sehar Baqlas lawyer