Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ALI CHANNAR versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH

RR 3 (b), 4 (1) (b) (iv), 5 and 7 Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), after issuance of employment to government employees conducting dismissal inquiries on section 4 misconduct. He was dismissed from the show, but he was accused of mismanagement by government employees without inquiry, saying that they sold the official wheat in the open market without permission. Given the nature of the charge against, the authority is not justified in providing regular inquiry into their case and that by adopting a summary procedure Deposit payment of large fines was not ratified by law and therefore it was reasonable that there should be a formal inquiry in the case of corruption against him. Whether an accused is a public servant or not, the facts of each case will depend on the competent government officer having the discretion to decide whether disciplinary action should be taken against a public servant in response. In response to the charge sheet, whether or not there should be a regular inquiry, such discretion was not governed by any of the prerequisites or guidelines, but it was to be used fairly and reasonably and not consciously or seriously. If the allegation against a public servant was based on a contentious question of fact, a public servant could not be denied regular investigation because it could not be resolved without recording the evidence and giving the witnesses an opportunity to testify. , Government employees, in plain words, admitted that they did something compulsory Kick Due to wheat in open market registration advocate from Loralai lawyer