Find a Lawyer

QAMAR-UD-DIN KHAN versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Government Employees (Eligibility and Discipline) Rules 1973 Rr 2 (4), 3 and 4 (1) (b) (iv) Government Employees (Practices) Rules, 1964, Rr 3 (1) (b), 11 A & 12: A government employee dismissed for misconduct was subjected to corruption and accused of corruption arising out of having disproportionate assets for reasons known to his income, issuing a charge sheet and investigating officer. Dismissed his employment as per the opportunity of hearing. The authorized officer, who was found guilty of all the allegations in light of the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence to the public servants, was not worth less than 300 million rupees, but the public servant was his accountant. Could not and in their annual declaration forms did not say that the property was not in the record from which it can be concluded that the public servant was victimized for political reasons by his wife's version Had earned. The revenue from his business was proved to be wrong because no oral or documentary evidence was presented in this regard; the public servant, in these circumstances, was rightfully dismissed in the charges against him. best law firms from Musakhel lawyer