Find a Lawyer

SIKANDAR ALI versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, SINDH AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY ORGANIZATION

Rr. 3, 4 (1) (b) (IV) and 5 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), for filing show cause notices to the appellant appellant from section 4 service and charge sheet on charges of ineligibility. He was subsequently dismissed. He was charged with negligence, mismanagement and shortage and mixing of stocks. But no inquiry has been made against them. From the facts and documents admitted, the disclosure of the charges against the appellant against the appellant was fully proved, for which no useful purpose could be obtained. Regular inquiries against the appellant, circumstances, nor the facts of the case against the appellant require the examination of a witness when a copy of the inquiry report is presented or the question of allowing the appellant to examine the witnesses Does not arise when the facts and allegations were admitted through appellant charges. The Appellant's premise was based on the documents / facts entered, in which case no complete inquiry was required. The ant was transferred correctly and the matter was properly dealt with under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Qualification and Discipline) Rules, 1973, along with the charge sheet to the appellant. The final showcase also had a chance for a personal hearing. The notice and the appellant did not take advantage of it, neither was the appellant due to any material prejudice nor the order of justice was violated and the dismissal of the employment against the appellant's law as being fully sustainable. The order was deleted, immigration advocates email from Killa Abdullah lawyer