MRS. SHAMA RASHDI AND OTHERS versus GOVERNOR OF SINDH
RR 3, 4 (1) (b) (I) (5) and 5 Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 were charged with dismissal of service and reduction of office appeal. He said that the appellant was issued a show cause notice and inquired against the sanctions due to heavy public money scams and illegal appointments such as corruption, even government-appointed appointments. Went, charges were leveled against him by an appellant. In light of the correspondence made by the appellant, it appeared absurd and the appellant had no motive for the reduction of the post for a period of two years, as opposed to the facts on record. Was neither maintainable nor durable nor obliged to deal with, the most serious allegations against the appellants were dismissed by him; regular inquiry was very necessary. Previously, even though this was done regularly, the legal proceedings withdrew the disciplinary action Or, the consequences could not be made the basis for a larger fine in subsequent proceedings, the impeachment order was set aside in connection with two appeals and the matter was remanded. Under current law, appellants were instructed to perform fresh investigations to be reinstated to work as a public servant, only for the purpose of facing fresh disciplinary proceedings, within a period of time. Will end and the result of a new action
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
