Find a Lawyer

AUDITOR-GENERAL OF PAKISTAN versus MUHAMMAD ALI

Sections 4 and 5 Rule 2 and 3 of the Government Employees (Efficiency and Forfeiture) Rules, careless negligence of services, an act of corruption and the imposition of corrective punishment, converting objections and jurisdictional fines to minor fines. Officers who shared the same were liable for negligence in overpayment transactions, each being fined a nominal fine of Rs 5,000, while government employees being subordinate officers, the same facts. On the basis of this, the case of punishment was strictly dealt with. Appeals filed by government employees and mandatory retirement penalties for jobs were changed from three stages to two phases for two years. Authorities demanded that government employees be negligent and inept and liable to justify public treasury was a process of negligent negligence that could potentially fall under the jurisdiction of public servants (performance and discipline). The misconduct set forth in R2 of the 1973 Act but it was certainly a valid basis on which a public servant could be fined as provided by the skills (competence and discipline) of the Government employees in R3. Is. Rules, 1973 7 Bad faith and malpractice can lead to negligence in the realm of misconduct, but lack of proper care and vigilance may not always lead to the seriousness of the issue, but the philosophy of punishment is based. In the concept of retaliation, which can be by means of humiliation or correction, the purpose of preventing punishment was to maintain balance not only with the gravity of the error committed by a person, but also in principle. online advocate from Parachinar lawyer