Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AYUB versus GENERAL MANAGER, (OPERATIONS) PAKISTAN RAILWAYS

Sections 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), the appellant was removed from the service after issuing a show cause notice and a charge sheet, but on charges of misconduct, infringement. Without investigating them. Regular inquiries were absolutely necessary in view of serious allegations against the appellant under discipline, ineligibility and corruption etc. Where the appellant should have had the opportunity to meet, he said that one of the charges against him was That he had previously faced about ten to ten minor sentences. Some of them waived petty convictions, even saying otherwise, under the doctrine of double jeopardy of a second cause and a personal risk of personal hearing, the conviction could not be made the basis of a larger sentence. The removal from the service was not provided (special) powers, the ordinance, 2000, but there were several Supreme Court authorities on which it was mandated, the agency issued a final grievance notice, imposing major penalties against employees. Is conducting disciplinary proceedings to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing. In the present case no inquiry was made against the appellant, after which his second showcase notice was not issued. They were also not heard personally, contradictions in the appellant's disciplinary proceedings showed that the improper order of removal of the appellant was illegal and needed to be set aside, the improper sanction granted by the appellant. The orders were put aside and they were restored back into service. During this period, immigration advocates phone number from Chaininda lawyer