Find a Lawyer

ABDUL MAJEED BHATTI versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

Appeals from RR 4 (1 (b) (iv), 5 and 6 Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4) to Service Appeals after issuing notice of cause and allegations of inquiry against them. He was dismissed from the job - the state treasury was charged with gross negligence over a $ 10 million (approximately) loss of Rs 10 billion, the conduct of both appellants can no doubt be dismissed. Are fully involved and can not admit appeals against the innocent during the departmental inquiry. Appellants presented no evidence of themselves or any witnesses in support of the respondents appearing on behalf of the respondents themselves, simply denying the allegations and examining the witnesses. It did not guarantee that the question of the amount of punishment was important. In this case, both the appellants were sentenced to dismissal, who were working in a senior position, said that they enjoyed greater authority and greater opportunity to manipulate the results. Nine charges were filed against the appellant, of which six were proved. On the other hand, there were eight charges against the appellant, of which only three were proved and they were working at a junior position and under the guidance and supervision of the senior appellant even if the junior had his own ax. For grinding, he was not in a position to manipulate matters in such a way as to affect the outcome itself so that the role of the junior appellant was secondary, while the role of the senior was of prime importance. Of lawer from fb area from Bolan lawyer