Find a Lawyer

SARDAR AHMED SIYAL versus GOVERNOR OF SINDH, KARACHI

RR 3, 4 (1) (b) (iii), 5, 6 and 7 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), Section 4 Service appellant was removed from service after appellant was charged with corruption. ? Provide no reason, but no preliminary / factual investigations were conducted without inquiry against them, except that the appellant strongly denied the allegations leveled against him and his position. , The authority has the authority to order it. As a regular inquiry, the shortest method of issuing a case show / final showcase notice against the appellant was not to be adopted but for the appellant's 36 year long service career to be imposed, the Authority directed. By giving a completely different approach to answering a questionnaire that the appellant did not confirm, at the end of justice according to the law, if, as the circumstances suggest, in Sindh Rule 6 of the Civil Servant (E) If a proper inquiry was made, they would have worked. The rules of jurisprudence and discipline) were held, the decision of the authorities to adopt a small procedure was completely blatant and volatile, which placed the order against the appellant against illegal and ultra-virus, its In addition, the material on record, without any supplemental appellant without imagination, was set aside to remove the charges leveled against him in the service passed by the appellant and reinstate him. Was done \ r \ n patent advocate from Sajawal lawyer