Find a Lawyer

SAEED AKHTAR BUTT versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY RAILWAYS, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

Section 3, 5 and 6 of the Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), after dismissing the appellants from section 4, have been on duty for more than ten years, after they have been charged and investigated against them on some allegations of misconduct. Job was dismissed, including absenteeism. Preparation of doctor's medical certificate, but in fact he traveled to different countries without obtaining the NOC without obtaining the NOC for the issuance of a passport for the issuance of a passport, accusing the appellant of preliminary proceedings. Were not made, the authorities were fully qualified to take appropriate action against the appellant. He said that the appellant in charge did not refuse to go abroad and obtain a passport from there, but his defense was that he was unaware of the rules regarding the NOC for travel abroad, unaware of the laws and rules. , There was no good defense in the disciplinary proceedings if other employees had committed similar irregularities, this would not justify the commission of the same irregularities by the appellant Sirius CMS. When he was discharged from Pakistan while in his service, the applicant received NOC penalty on these charges. Without this, no legal error was encountered, the authorities did not pass any mechanical order as per the minister's alleged instruction, all legal formal observations were approved after the observation that the specific charge was made against the appellant and He was given the opportunity to defend himself Appellant was able to defend the charges against him in the disciplinary proceedings. famous lower court advocate from Amangarh lawyer