Find a Lawyer

SYED KHURSHEED ANWAR versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY ESTABLISHMENT GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD

RR 3, 4 (1) (b) (iv), 5, 6 and 7 Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 Service Appellate Appeal for the issuance of notice and inquiry against Was subsequently dismissed. Appellant did not appeal his dismissal order on charges of mismanagement, misconduct, and misconduct, etc., but appealed to the service tribunal to amend his mandatory retirement from employment dismissal. , So that they can afford it. The pensionary appellant claimed that the same allegations included two others with him, but one of them ended up expecting his appeal, while the other was essentially retired by the authorities and Only the appellant was sentenced to severe dismissal. The appellant of the service claimed that the punishment for his dismissal should be changed to compulsory retirement, keeping all three persons in the interest of equality and justice. The gentleman's appellant played a role in the fraud and misappropriation of public money as he misused his authority to approve the payment by negotiating a hypothetical sanction on the bogus bills prepared by the accused for payment. What was The fraud was said to have been divided between them by three persons, but upon the detection of the fraud, they submitted back and said that the wrong amount had been allotted in the case by the government, very dishonestly. Due to this, all three defendants deserve a dismissal from employment, but less than the mandatory retirement penalty from the service of one of the three accused employees. advocate for immigration from Gambet lawyer