Find a Lawyer

INAYATULLAH versus EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE ESTATE LANDS, EXCISE AND TAXATION), LARAKANA

Rr 3, 4 (1) (b) (iv), 5 Appeal to the Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), Section 4 Service was dismissed after issuing show cause notices, but regular against it. Without investigating allegations that files of civil and rural landed property claims and registers of civilian property in their possession were missing. The allegations against the appellant were very serious, requiring a thorough investigation through impartial and independent inquiry in view of the appellant's complete denial, but no such practice was made. In the case where the appellant was sued, in view of the grave nature of the allegations against the appellant and could not be transferred with regular inquiry, the initial burden was to prove the charge against the appellant, That was not possible. In addition to presenting without evidence, the Thorised Officer Deputy Commissioner, who issued the first and last showcase notice to appeal in the capacity of the Deputy Commissioner, legally imposed a large fine on dismissal of employment on the appellant. Was not authorized to do / give. Such a law of dismissal of the appellant was in jeopardy; all lost files and entries beyond quorum and authority were traced during the appeal sentence, which proved that earlier The search for the missing record from the exercise was conducted in a concise manner, the order of dismissal of the appellant against the facts, illegal, now declared involuntary and void, and the appellant was all back and consequently. To be restored to service with benefits famous lower court advocate from Head Marala lawyer