Find a Lawyer

SHAMSHAD ALI versus SENIOR POST MASTER (DELY), ISLAMABAD G.P.O., ISLAMABAD

Government Employees (Talent and Discipline) Rules 1973 R 5 Mandatory Retirement Department Inquiry Professional Irregular Government employee was working as a clerk in the Treasury Branch of the General Post Office envelopes and a government employee drew stamps worth millions. Was taken and taken away. After several weeks, the showcase notice was issued to the public servant in the account, and in response to the notice, the public servant acknowledged the delay and was up to the task because of this, after being dissatisfied with the government employee's response. In addition to the mandatory retirement department appeals, as well as appeals made by the service tribunal, the playboy taken by a public servant was told that he had been charged by the authorities with a formal inquiry. I did not have the opportunity to reject the evidence as given under R5. The Government Employees (Performance and Discipline) Rules, 1973, were not justified in view of the excessive and serious evidence against the public servant and his own admission, the Supreme Court denied, stating that the use of public servants And discipline) were not regularly investigated under R5 of Rules 1973, the Service Tribunal carefully considered the available materials and approved the decision. The service was based on valid and valid reasons by the tribunal and the law enforced by the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court relaxed the sentence for compulsory retirement from the service, with the Supreme Court interfering with the decision passed by the service tribunal. Was denied. Dismiss family advocate from Dhoun Kal lawyer