RASHEED AHMAD MEMON versus NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (NHA)
Section 3, 5, 6 and 7 dismisses the appellant from service as a Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Engineer (BPS 19), for issuing notice of cause and for corruption, ineligibility He was dismissed from the job after being charged with the charges. No disciplinary action was taken against the appellant under the Ordinance of Service etc. (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 The charges against the appellant were not specifically mentioned in the office order under which the order of the three officers under the authority of the authorized authority An inquiry committee was formed. Based on the first statements of the applicant and others and their inquiries were recorded by the inquiry committee, the question was recorded. The appellant denied the allegations contained in the two showcase notices, but the appellant was given no opportunity for cross-examination. The appellant has been given the opportunity to examine the witnesses, disciplinary proceedings are being made against him and corruption. In such proceedings, the appellant could not be legally punished where the allegations of fact were denied, a departmental inquiry was absolutely necessary to give the accused a full opportunity to defend himself through cross examination. , But this was not the case for the appellant. The Inquiry Officer or the Inquiry Committee Regular Inquiry, which then required the charge sheet to be sent, was not sent to the two showcase notices and no reason was given, otherwise illegal, issued by the unqualified authority Outlawed and law-abiding, officials were instructed to restore the appellant from the date of his dismissal.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
