Также здесь представлены профилактических мерах, актуальных подходах и рекомендациях специалистов.
ninety three . Const. P. 642/2023 (D.B.) Fatima Noor V/S Dow University of Health Science and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi Coming to your main case, It is usually a very well-proven proposition of regulation that when an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court is concerned with determining whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power, and authority to achieve a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules nor proof of a fact or evidence in the Stricto-Sensu, utilize to disciplinary proceedings. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion acquire support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty on the charge, however, that is subject matter into the procedure provided under the relevant rules and not otherwise, with the reason that the Court in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-respect the evidence and to reach at its independent findings around the evidence.
This Court might interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a very method inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the manner of inquiry or where the summary or finding reached via the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. When the summary or finding is for instance no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court may possibly interfere with the summary or the finding and mould the relief to really make it proper to your facts of each and every case. In service jurisprudence, the disciplinary authority may be the sole judge of facts. Where the appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re-take pleasure in the evidence or even the nature of punishment. On the aforesaid proposition, we've been fortified from the decision of your Supreme Court while in the case of Ghulam Murtaza Shaikh v. Chief Minister Sindh (2024 SCMR 1757). Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Creator) Source: Order: Downloads 252 Order Date: 24-JAN-twenty five Approved for Reporting WhatsApp
competent authority and when any appeal or representation is filed the same shall be decided(Promotion)
Amir Abdul Majid, 2021 SCMR 420. 12. There is not any denial from the fact that in Government service it is anticipated that the persons getting their character higher than board, free from any moral stigma, are to get inducted. Verification of character and antecedents is usually a condition precedent for appointment to the Government service. The candidates must have good character and supply two recent character certificates from unrelated individuals. What is discernible from the above mentioned is that the only impediment to being appointed into a Government service would be the conviction on an offense involving moral turpitude but involvement, which does not culminate into a proof by conviction, cannot be a means out or guise to complete away with the candidature of the petitioner. Read more
This Court may possibly interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the summary or finding reached via the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the summary or finding is like no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court may interfere with the summary or maybe the finding and mildew the relief to make it suitable on the facts of every case. In service jurisprudence, the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where the appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or even the nature of punishment. On the aforesaid proposition, we've been fortified with the decision in the Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Murtaza Shaikh v. Chief Minister Sindh (2024 SCMR 1757). Read more
Permit’s center on what the Prosecution must prove in order to gain a conviction. There are four elements that must be proven.
Extra username and password are demanded for this resource. See Username and password webpage for details
after release from the prison he shed interest to contest the moment appeal , appeal is dismissed (Criminal Jail Appeal )
If that judgment goes to appeal, the appellate court will have the opportunity to review both the precedent along with the case under appeal, Possibly overruling the previous case regulation by setting a fresh precedent of higher authority. This may perhaps occur several times as being the case works its way through successive appeals. Lord Denning, first of the High Court of Justice, later on the Court of more info Appeal, provided a famous example of this evolutionary process in his development on the concept of estoppel starting in the High Trees case.
Criminal cases In the common law tradition, courts decide the legislation applicable to a case by interpreting statutes and implementing precedents which record how and why prior cases have been decided. Contrary to most civil regulation systems, common law systems Adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis, by which most courts are bound by their have previous decisions in similar cases. According to stare decisis, all decrease courts should make decisions regular with the previous decisions of higher courts.
Article 199 with the Constitution allows High Court intervention only when "no other suitable remedy is provided by law." It can be well-settled that an aggrieved person must exhaust obtainable remedies before invoking High Court jurisdiction, regardless of whether Those people remedies suit them. The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies prevents unnecessary High Court litigation. Read more
13309-B of 2010 to become weak types of evidence as well as the evidentiary value whereof would be observed on the time in the trial. The investigation of this case has already been finalized and, Hence, confirmed custody on the petitioner in jail is unlikely to provide any valuable purpose at this stage.”
The residents argued that the high-voltage grid station would pose a health risk and prospective hazard to local residents. Ultimately, the court determined the scientific evidence inconclusive, though observing the general craze supports that electromagnetic fields have unfavorable effects on human health. The Court accepted the petitioner’s argument that it should undertake the precautionary principle set out within the 1992 Rio Declaration over the Environment and Advancement, the first international instrument that linked environment protection with human rights, whereby The dearth of full scientific certainty should not be used being a reason to prevent environmental degradation.