Find a Lawyer

JOHN HAIDER versus DIRECTOR FOOD SINDH APPELLATE AUTHORITY

RR 5 (4) (1) (B) (iv) and 5 of the Sindh Service Tribunal Act (XV of 1973), the appellant appealing to section 4 service has been dismissed from the job after issuing notice. Has purchased Encoded In Food Inspector. The policy order passed against the appellant and the wheat appellant from the area in violation of the Food Policy Order of the Department was illegal, invalid and, as a deputy director, was a dismissal and illegal decision. Was convicted of a major fine. Appellant acted in the dual capacity of the \ Authorized Officer \ and the \ Authorized \ Authorized Officer was eligible to impose a minor penalty, but he was subject to the provisions of R5 (4) (b) of the Sindh Civil Servants. Was unable to pay a large fine. And Regulations), with its recommendation to the Rule 1973 Authorized Authority, it was obligatory on the competent authority officer that the practice which was not exercised could not maintain the order passed against the appellant. Under the circumstances no material was prepared in relation to the target of wheat procurement for the appellant and there was no record to state that if the appellant purchased any wheat from another area, In the absence of any material material, on the basis of mere assumptions and assumptions, the appellant could not be held guilty. law websites from Makran lawyer