Find a Lawyer

S. M. IMTIAZ AND ANOTHER versus COMDT. COD KARACHI AND ANOTHER

Rr 4 (1) (b) (iii), 5 & 6 Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 Appellant was removed from service after serving with show cause notice and thorough investigation of this charge. Was. Appellant, who has been absent from duty for too long, has not presented any evidence to prove that he has received prior permission to leave the headquarters and his leave has been granted. No permission and approval request was made before. For so long the duty-to-disciplinary proceedings and other relevant records showed that under the Public Employees (Talent and Discipline) Rules 1973 there was a full inquiry against the appellant and it was stated that all relevant rules in the inquiry And there are established principles of natural justice. All notices and Corespo were unlawfully imposed in the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, calling for the appellant to assume duty and to participate in the investigative proceedings and to increase the defense and to have the opportunity of a personal hearing. For, the disputed recorded address was sent to the appellant, in the absence of the applicant's documentation and oral evidence, the unauthorized prolonged absence of the contrary duty was completely proved, In the absence of any legal and factual weakness, improper order cannot be interfered with A dog. inheritance advocates near Rohri lawyer