Find a Lawyer

SADARUDDIN versus SUPERINTENDENTOFPOLICE

R128 Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973), Section 23 (2), Government employee responding to statements of allegations made with him on the job as Assistant Sub-Inspector on the job. Submitted. , But neither the Inquiry Officer was named nor any inquiry made and instead he was removed from the job under R12 8 of the Police Rules 1934, except for the charges against public servants. Released also because they were not suitable for retention. Service for any reason that we are providing due to the inability of the civil servant to retain the service, for any reason whatsoever to result in this order of discharge against the civil servant. The negligence of, thus required in the imperative requirement and the charges to be retained cannot be sustained. It was made against a civil servant, who was undoubtedly removed from the job, he was serious, but merely involved in such criminal matters was not an act. The purpose of passing any sentence of punishment against him, especially when none of them were proven either in criminal proceedings or departmental inquiries, in which case, a public servant, could not be relieved of such charges. Was. jobs for fresh advocates from Kalar Syedian lawyer