Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD ALI KHAN AND ANOTHER versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS POLICE

RR 2 (iii) and 7 (2) (3) of the Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), after the dismissal of the appellant serving as a constable, he was issued notice and inquired against him. Was dismissed after an inquiry into the allegations. Unauthorized absence of duty on the relevant date when his absence resulted in the hiring of a train in which he was to perform his duties. Appellant admitted his unauthorized absence from duty, He had the burden of proving a reasonable cause for his absence, but failed to do so by failing to notify Appellant Department HO or other concerned officers of their absence and providing them with sufficient time. Despite this, he could not assign a valid reason for not notifying the relevant authorities. The authorities, despite the alleged contradictions in the disciplinary proceedings, found their duty to be extremely sensitive and disappeared without any notice, but in any form of collusion, conspiracy, or train. No charges were filed against the robbers' involvement, however, keeping in view the defects on both sides, the appellant's sentencing petition was accepted. Applicants were dismissed for their dismissal of the services rendered and were replaced to withhold their salaries within a period of three years from the date of termination of employment. According to the amended sentence, the appellant was reinstated from the date of his dismissal. For this period, they were nowhere else useful jobs for advocates from Hunza Nagar lawyer