Find a Lawyer

CHANGIAL SHAH versus THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH FOOD DEPARTMENT

Rr 3, 4 (1) (b) (iii) and 5 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), after issuing show cause notices to the appellant appealing to section 4 service and charging him on charges of corruption. Removed from job And negligence; but without full formal investigation against it, the competent officer recommended a substantial reduction in rank against the appellant authority for a period of six months, however, the recommendation of the authorized officer was not agreed and from He was convicted of a major removal fine. The service / authority had to act fairly and in a manner that did not violate the principles of natural justice, although both the penalties were significant in the rank rank and removal from the service, but more than the reduction in service removal. It was hard. In the position and if the authority intended to impose fines higher than the penalty recommended by the competent officer, he had to issue a notice to the appellant to explain his point of view, but this was not done in the present case. Because serious allegations were made. It was not a case of adoption of the summary procedure against the appellant, but it was necessary to conduct regular investigation. The procedure adopted in conducting the preliminary inquiry and exchange of regular inquiries was not validated by the law and, contrary to the rule of law, the appellant was ordered to be removed from the job. And the appellant was instructed to reapply. \ R \ n property advocate from Leepa lawyer