Find a Lawyer

MRS. ABIDA PARVEEN CHANNAR versus HIGH COURT OF SINDH

Appeal to appellant for service delivery during R9 Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), Sections 3B and 4 probationary periods appointed Judicial Magistrate under Code of Conduct under Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 and Sindh Judicial Services Rules 1994 was done. Appellant's term, his services were terminated due to unsatisfactory conduct. Appellant's representation was rejected by the competent authority, the appellant claimed that there was no material available to prove unsatisfactory performance by the appellant during the trial period and that an invalid order was approved Was. Issue a notice without cause or provide an opportunity for the appellant to hear, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Judicial Appellant was appointed under the provisions of sub-rule (2) of R9 of the Contemporary Judicial Service Rules 1994. If the service member's work or behavior was found to be unsatisfactory during the investigation period, if his service was terminated due to unsatisfactory work and conduct, May be subject to notice and / or hearing for any reason if the removal is in process. Due to corruption, misconduct or injury to the profession of a public servant, the service was considered, the legal responsibility of the Authority to present a show cause notice to take appropriate and reasonable opportunity to defend against it. Was imposed. Due to unclear performance, the action against the appellant was clearly shown that there was no defamation or fraud in the appellant's termination orders, family advocate from Matli lawyer