MUHAMMAD AFZAL, S.V. TEACHER, GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (MALE), BAHAWALPUR
Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975 R 6 (3) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), Section 4 Employee removed from employment after issuing notice for this reason That he had served. Responding to a notice caused by a public servant through fraudulent and illegal means was not considered and he was removed from the job without paying any compensation for his dismissal. Removing the job is a big deal. There was a fine and it demanded action under the Punjab Government Employees (Talent and Discipline) Rules 1975. But no such officer was taken. No competent officer was appointed and the authority itself acted as an officer under R6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants Rules 1976. , The competent officer decides that an inquiry is necessary, he shall promptly notify the public servant in writing of the order and the grounds for the proposed action against him, but in the present case the showman Prior to the issuance of the notice, it was stated that the required provisions were not complied with as neither the charge sheet was given to the public servant nor Inquiry was the civil servant was not provided an opportunity to examine witnesses in the investigation nor the authorized officer did not mention the name of the informant. Nor was the inquiry officer examined by the informant. The dismissal against the civil servant was set aside in the circumstances and he was ordered to be reinstated.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
