Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ANIS HAIDER versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, EXCISE & TAXATION

R4 (1) (b) (i) Punjab Appeal Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), Appellate Authority Inquiry Committee found in its report the appeal for dismissal of services imposed on section 4 appellant. The co-accused clerk was directly involved in the defamation / embezzlement process, but the committee also found a partially proved charge against the appellant, the competent authority itself admitting that the appellant was only subordinate to the appellant. Can be blamed for monitoring and disqualification for error detection. The circumstances were punished for ineligibility which did not constitute a part of the charge sheet, the circumstances were not sustained The responsible clerk / co-accused was responsible for obtaining cash from vehicle owners outside the office premises. And he was found to have drowned. To know how the appellant, in his ability to supervise, disclose the abuse to the co-accused, when he was not required to receive cash from the car owners, to find out if there was a mechanism for the appellant. Whether the money in question is deposited or not, if the clerk / co-accused is acting under it, the appellant had deposited the cash in his private capacity and confiscated it, the appellant had no knowledge of it. Source and as a result the appellant could not be held responsible for any lack of supervision or lack of performance and the appeal was not The adoption order was set aside. immigration advocates from Layyah lawyer