Find a Lawyer

ABDUL RAHIM RAHOJO versus SINDH AGRICULTURE SUPPLIES ORGANIZATION, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH

Appellants from RR 3, 4 (1) (b) (iv) and 5 Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), Section 4 Service, were dismissed after issuing show cause notice and charge sheet. As a supervisory officer, the full inquiry into allegations of incompetence, corruption, misconduct, misconduct and stock shortages against him, without any arrest, was his responsibility to keep a steady eye on the stock. From time to time to check and confirm stock to prevent any loss / damage, he should have made good arrangements or pre-visit to the warehouse as the appellant had failed to do so, so he was ineligible. And was responsible for arrest for lack of supervision. Only Godon did not deny the appellant's cell inspector charge of responsibility and the damage to the government and did not deny that the appellant admitted in response to the charge sheet. That there was a huge money shortage, but he denied his guilt and insisted that only the depot charge was responsible for the losses in Godown, which was managed under the Double Lock system, the appellant said. One key was kept by himself and the other key remained with the sales. The inspector who was in charge of the warehouse, the appellant and the sales inspector, on whom the appellant sought to transfer the responsibility, were jointly and severally responsible for the safe storage of allied stock which the appellant's role in the reduction and other wrongdoings was The value is clear, that the inquiry, even if it did, could not have made any difference, on the contrary, was a futile exercise. list of supreme court advocates from Qambar Shahdatkot lawyer