Find a Lawyer

ABDUL QAYYUM ADEEL versus AUDITOR-GENERAL OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS

Rr 3 (a) (b), 4 (1) (b) (ii), 5, 6 and 7 Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 Compulsory Retirement Appeals On Appellant's Inquiry and Corruption Inquiry Officer Was fined. All the allegations leveled against him were formally appointed, the appellant was resigned, but the competent officer disagreed with the inquiry officer and was directed to pay the same as the appellant appealed the mandatory retirement order. What was the challenge After going through the inquiry process conducted by the Inquiry Officer, he was deemed fully authorized to confirm and was fully empowered to agree. The inquiry report, but the rules of justice require that in the event of a disagreement of opinion, an empowered officer must present concrete reasons for his disqualification. The deal with the inquiry officer, but for reasons of the appeals given by the officers authorized to agree with the inquiry officer, was not convinced of only some of the facts which came up during the inquiry. The fact-finding officer highlighted by the Inquiry Officer was not guilty The Reasonable Officer was required to provide reasonable reasons for arriving at a conclusion - was not in accordance with the Inquiry Officer's conclusion, but determined the Inquiry Officer's report. The reasons given were not given by the competent authority, in which case there was no justification for recording. Shi was not the competent authority of the Complaint Authority recommended the appeal was a need to consider while deciding the case of unwanted orders inquiry against the officer's report and e attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Gari Mori lawyer