Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SAEED JAMALI versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN

The Appellant was charged on some charges on RR 9 (2) and 15 Balochistan Service Tribunals Act (v. 1974), Section 4 minor fines inspector officer's report. The appellant was held liable only for the absence of the inquiry officer when the alleged incident took place, the officer authorized to go through the inquiry report, was acquitted of the charge against him, but later received an apology notification Was withdrawn and minor penalties were imposed on the appellant by the authorized Government Employees (Talent and Discipline) Rule 1992, sub-rule (2) of KR15, which is the first to state that If a prejudice order from a public servant is approved, it is not approved, unless given the opportunity. An order to impose a fine against the appellant was passed, without giving him any opportunity to be heard, in violation of the order against the appellant against public servants who were against the principles of natural justice (talent and discipline). Forfeiture) Rule 15 (1) (2) of the Rules, 1992 was set aside advocate for immigration from Bahawalpur lawyer