Find a Lawyer

ABDUL KAREEM SAHITO versus SAZDA THROUGH DIRECTOR-GENERAL AND 3 OTHERS

Appeal apparatus to the RR1 (3) (II), (iii) and 6 (4) Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), Section 4 service was removed from service because it issued a show cause notice. The notice was issued. Some of the serious allegations of misconduct that were denied by the appellant but were not formally investigated, the original inquiries were told in the original removal order, in fact the inquiries were unaware that any Appellant was not concerned at the stage which could not be construed as law. In addition to the great punishment to the appellant, copies of the inquiry reports were also not provided to the appellant, nor were they issued any final showcase notice, which in the present case had rendered all the departmental proceedings inactive, d Authorized ized Officer \ and`s authority to prosecute the applicant in violation of Sindh Irrigation Zone Development Authority Employees (Discipline and Discipline) Rules, 1990, but even second / final showcase notice to the appellant. Was not issued when it was fully fined and at the same time the appellant was unlawful On the way, he was fined with no legal authority and no quorum injustice. Also, as the record shows that there was no wrong in accepting the appeal, the order to remove the appellant from the service approved against him was set aside and he was directed to reinstate. ? \ r \ n \ r \ n law firms from Kunri lawyer