Register
← Back to Anti-Narcotics Force Act 1997 Outline

9

Grounds of punishment

Act: Anti-Narcotics Force Act 1997

Section Provisions

ACT III OF 1997 ACT III OF 1997 ANTI‑NARCOTICS FORCE ACT, 1997 9. Grounds of punishment.‑‑Where, a member', in the opinion of the Authority‑‑ (a) is inefficient or has ceased to be efficient; or (b) is guilty of misconduct; or (c) is corrupt or may reasonably be considered corrupt because‑‑ (i) he is, or any of his dependents or any other person claiming through him, or on his behalf is, in possession (for which he cannot reasonably account) of pecuniary resources or any property disproportionate to his known sources of income; or (ii) he has assumed a style of living beyond his ostensible means; or (iii) he has a reputation of being corrupt; or (d) he is engaged or is reasonably suspected of being engaged in subversive or narcotics activities, or is reasonably suspected of being associated with those engaged in subversive or narcotics activities or is guilty of disclosure of official secrets to any unauthorised person, and his retention in service is, therefore, prejudicial to national security and interest of State, the, authority may impose on him one or more punishments specified in, subsection (1) of section 8.

Statute Tools

Citing Judgments

  • P L D 2024 Supreme Court 810 The STATE through A.N.F., Rawalpindi---Appellant Versus OBAID KHAN (deceased) through L.Rs. and others---Respondents
  • P L D 2024 Lahore 584 MUHAMMAD BILAL NAWAZ---Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, FIA, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 5 others---Respondents
  • 2023 P Cr MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and another---Petitioners Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, ISLAMABAD and another---Respondents
  • P L D 2022 Lahore 235 ABDUL REHMAN and another---Appellants Versus The STATE---Respondent
  • P L D 2022 Sindh 233 ABDUL REHMAN---Appellant Versus The STATE---Respondent
  • 2018 P Cr MUHAMMAD ALAM---Applicant Versus The STATE---Respondent