Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AFZAL versus CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD

Section 2 (AA), 3, 5 and 10 Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 Service Tribunal Appellant was dismissed for service dismissal, corruption, misconduct, misappropriation of money etc. ? The disciplinary proceedings under the dismissal order of the appellant against the appellant showed weakness in the procedure, the Chief Election Commissioner acting as the competent authority, the order of inquiry was also made by the Secretary, the Election Commission. Released with statement of counter-statement. With the authorized authority charge sheet as well as the statement of the charges, the inquiry officer was required to be issued instead of authorized, the first showcase notice secretary of the authority, the Election Commission issued acting as the authorized authority, and the second showcase notice chief Election Commissioner issued. Acting as a competent authority without realizing this early, the Secretary Election Commission had also previously acted as a competent authority in issuing showcase notices; such violation of rules, punitive action against a single officer in accordance with the rules. Two competing authorities of different levels were not appointed to deal with and the sole authority had caused serious prejudice in the defense of the appellant because the controversial and self-defeating orders were of service (special powers). ) Were issued with reference to the same section of cancellation from the Ordinance, 2000 Complaint against the Appellant. It was not disclosed, but no one owned the complaints against the appellant, authorities took on the role of complainants and they were charged when you need a advocate from Kamalia Musa lawyer