SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB versus KHALID HUSSAIN HAMDANI
Sections 13 and 4 (1) (a) (v) negligence by public servants to be proportionate to the penalty charge The scope inquiry officer is found to be negligent to the public servant, and to the competent authority recommending a minor penalty, Increasing the punishment. Legal employment accused government employees of paying extra in advance, without giving reasons for disagreeing with the inquiry officer's recommendations, and relying on the report that was prepared after the showcase notice was issued to civil servants. had gone. Neither he nor he was accused of taking personal advantage by the inquiry officer, pointing out that this function of public servants could be interpreted as negligence of his contribution. The inquiry officer recommended stopping the development of public servants for a certain period and recovered Rs. Millions were paid to the contracting authority, which issued the showcase, giving notice to public servants, after which the chief engineer relied on the report mentioned by the Complaint Authority, increasing the penalty for dismissal. The report was never contested by the government employees, which was submitted after the investigation, neither part of the inquiry nor any notice was given to the government employees. The increase in penalties by the competent authority was based on unreasonable and unusual content. Because of that otherwise had been disproportionate to the amount of penalty charges qualifications was not to blame in this. As a contractor
