R4 (1) (b) (i), 5 and 6 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), after serving the final penalty of two years in section 4 with the final showcase notice to the appellant given. , But had not filed an appeal before the service tribunal, without inquiring against it by the fake company accused, who was awarded a major fine for removing the job and recovering damages through a separate order. That the appellant had filed a case against them. The challenge against the appellant against another person charged with the misappropriation of public money was an invalid order, which he denied and explained his position, but his Nevertheless, no formal inquiry was ordered and neither was he demanded for the greater punishment against him. A government employee will have sufficient, convincing and reliable evidence that can only be submitted through a formal departmental inquiry, but there was no such inquiry. The participant's inquiry report against the accused revealed that the co-accused was Without the Applicant's information, that has changed, but also the data manipulation in the approved bills and the checks presented to the bank appellant, in the circumstances may be punished on the basis of someone else's fault and defect. In the absence of any formal investigation, the alleged negligence, neglect of duty and absence of any concrete, convincing and tangible evidence of the absence of supervision by the appellant, he was punished. The impug order was placed aside, under conditions
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
