ABDUL KARIM versus PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION
Regln 75 (1) of the Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), dismissing appellant acting as a security guard under section 4, thereby issuing a notice and dismissing him after the inquiry into the charge. During the loading of the goods, the vigilance staff recovered three persons. The golden bangles from the possession of the loader and the appellant who said the golden bangles were present on the occasion, said that the entire case against the theft appellant relies on the confessional statement of the co-accused / loader, whose statement has no Not visible Appellant's law was dismissed from the job, he was acquitted of the charges against him, yet the three co-accused, who were acquitted from the appellant, were allowed to remain in the job. Was allowed, while disciplinary action was taken against him while he was dismissed from his job. , Although his case came under the highest negligence, whether the main culprit was the loader or whether the appellant had any hand in the matter, or whether he knew that the loader had the available bangles, it could be proved by evidence. Need to prove, but no evidence was available, except that the evidence of the trial and the confession of the loader were connected to the loader's confession before the police or vigilance team as stated that the confession offense was only The accused may be against the loader record which shows that the employer corporation has adopted different methods for different officials in the same case. And in this case the employer's Coun Counsel could not satisfy the service tribunal on the point of contention. Appeal on behalf of the corporation
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
