Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SARWAR versus CHAIRMAN WAPDA

Rr 4 (1) (b) (iii), 5, 6 and 7 of the Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), after the Appellate Appeal to Section 4 Service was charged on the charge of misconduct and misconduct of transformers. Was removed from the job. In two criminal cases registered against him for misconduct or theft, a top officer appellant was released by police and a report verifying the police version of the sub-divisional officer is on record, alleging theft or misuse of transformers. In the circumstances, it was not proved against the appellant. A detailed investigation into the allegations of theft / misuse of transformers is required, but no inquiry has been made against which appellant could not be convicted of theft / misappropriation of transformers, Could not be convicted of a misdemeanor charge with senior. The officer was found guilty against the appellant No inquiry was necessary on the allegation that the competent authority properly retained the appellant's responsible F or proceeded as he had abused his senior officer since theft / The allegations of misconduct were not proved, so the appellant cannot be convicted on the charge that, although the allegation of misconduct, the charge against the appellant was proved, he was removed from office. Was imposed. He said the proportion of charges for mismanagement was disputed. Removing a job on the charge of mismanagement was a severe punishment and could not be sustained, but it was not a simple rule, each case was decided by its own good. jobs for advocates from Sohawa District Daska lawyer