MUHAMMAD URS versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH THROUGH HOME SECRETARY
R16 32 Sindh Police (Eligibility and Discipline) Rules, 1988, R6 (3) (b) (i) Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional Petition of the Applicant Retiring Order Final Amendment of the Applicable Retirement Order He served in the Police Department for 36 years but due to his absence without leave, he was prosecuted under R6 (3) (b) (i) of the Sindh Police (Discipline and Discipline) Rules 1988. , And they were charged with compulsory retirement, and the appellate authority set aside the penalties and changed the applicant's absence without medical leave to leave. As stated, the authorities sought to review the order approved by the appellate authority and refused to implement the order already approved in the appellate jurisdiction, the appellate authority passed a judicial order in the appeal Was. Although the order of the appellate authority was subject to review under Police Rules 1934 KR 16 32, such review was only available to the applicant and not the department and it could only be preferred to the appellate authority over the next authority. The appellate authority was the highest authority in the police, as such review could not be preferred in the case, even if the applicant himself had been approved by the appellate authority. Whether or not it was valid can only be decided by law, nor is the decree passed in favor of the applicant by clarification or revision of the comments already filed by the Appellate Authority in clear terms. And the decree was set aside. Must
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
