Find a Lawyer

IFTIKHARHUSSAIN versus AZADGOVERNMENT

R5 Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (VIII 1908), Section 151 Prior to the dismissal of civil servants from the notification dated 6-1 1994, while the dismissal of the civil servant. The notification was also fined for imposing. 2 Following the calculation of the subsequent notification issued on 1994, the embezzled amount was directed to receive some of the money allegedly misappropriated by the public servants in which the public servants were present before the service tribunal. A joint appeal was filed against the two notifications, which concluded that it had been fined. The public servant was not sustainable as a result of the investigation against him, and the inquiry against him was a violation of the law, and in this case the service tribunal received remand for a fresh inquiry into the matter, however, As a result, the civil servant did not receive relief. The date of the notification was reported on 7 2 1994 based on the fact that the legal period of the ninth day had not yet expired at the time of the new notification, before the Challenge 6 al 1994 was allegedly embezzled for the accuracy of the service tribunal. The penalty for receipt of money was issued by the second notification dated 6 1 1994, which was dated 7 2 1994, it was determined by itself that it was not in continuation of the first notification nor was there any penalty on the civil servants themselves. Was not imposed nor was it a new order, but it was merely a measure of the implementation of an earlier notification, which had previously been issued on 6 November 1994, If given, the order passed or the structure taken on the basis of such order will also be illegal. Service Tribo immigration advocates phone number from Ghazi lawyer