MR. MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR versus PAKISTAN STEEL THROUGH CHAIRMAN
Section 3, 5, 6 and 7 Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 was imposed on the appellant for imposing a penalty of at least three steps on the basis of which he receives appointment. ? Appointment of political influence Appellant was based on the recommendations of the Selection / Interview Committee consisting of senior officers of the department whose recommendations were approved by the competent authority. What could have been done was three inquiries against the appellant. The appellant was acquitted in two inquiries before being charged with obtaining an appointment on the basis of political influence, but in the third inquiry he was convicted of departmental action, in situations where there was a double risk. Appellant was acquitted of the charges then he can do so on the same evidence. Don't be punished. The charge sheet against the applicant being illegal and b not being consistent with the law, it was stated that the entire proceeding on the basis of the illegal charge sheet failed and the appellant on the basis of not seeking the charge sheet against him. There can be no harmful action for For more than 15 years, the appellant had been deliberately and dishonestly involved by the department in exercising political pressure and a negative order had already been set, which was illegal and bad. Authority's decision to impose penalties on appellant was declared illegal and invalid
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
