Find a Lawyer

ABDUL GHANI BHUTTO versus DIRECTOR, FOOD DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH AND ANOTHER

RR 3 and 4 (1) (b) (iv) of the Indemnity Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), excluding section 4 from the charge that the appellant should be served as food grain inspector. The department proceeded to recover 1165 bags of wheat under their control. After filing a show cause notice on a short appellant, a lower level of food supervisor was reduced to a lower term for a period of two years and a huge fine of Rs 7,60,162 / 50 was recovered. Appellant filed a department appeal against this penalty At the hearing of the department's appeal, the appellant was instructed to pay the first installment within 7 days within seven days. It should be made an authority, however, after giving a show cause notice to the appellant, the appellant was awarded a major fine for dismissal on failure to collect the fine, the first concession order, to pay Rs one lakh in a fixed period. It was directed that while the remaining amount was ordered to receive Rs. 3,000 monthly from the salary of the appellant if for some reason the appellant failed to pay the first installment of Rs. Could be recovered and thus there was no legal justification for initiating fresh disciplinary proceedings against him, Qyh amount to be deducted from the monthly salary of a call, as was to be a prudent amount of Rs. His monthly salary has been recovered, but instead of doing so, the authorities initiated another disciplinary proceeding, and in the second disciplinary proceedings, department officials worked on the dual competence of the authorized officer and authority. What attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Darya Khan lawyer