SHEERIN WALI versus CHAIRMAN, WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE
R5 (iv) The Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), after dismissing Section 4 of the appeal against the appellant, was dealt with by a letter in which he was liable for wrongdoing. The clarification was sought and it was said that the letter was based on a report of inquiry which contained several incidents. Anomalies were cited in connection with store materiel and stock account account maintenance Appellant responded to the charge sheet and presented his point in detail, but the authority did not accept appellant's response without giving a reason. From the appellant's point of view, the authority should have given some plausible reasons for not agreeing with the appellant's explanation, but the allegations against them were not denied by the appellant, making the facts controversial and controversial. The facts could be solved. By making regular inquiries in which the appellant had a full opportunity to explain to his inquiry officer / committee, E had to decide what was fact and what the actual facts were, but the appellant's view was briefly rejected. The appellant was not fully involved in the preliminary investigation and his statement was merely recorded and in his absence the statements of witnesses were recorded against him. The appellant was dismissed on the same day that the personal hearing was given to him and it was shown that the personal hearing was given to the appellant only for a regular completion and there was no meaningful action against the appellant. Meaningful, meaningful personal hearing taken without regular hearing or hearing
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
