Find a Lawyer

IMTIAZ AHMED versus FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION

Sections 3 and 5 of the Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), the appeal for removal of Service 4, were imposed upon the applicant after issuing a show cause notice to the appellant, but without full inquiry and providing him with a personal hearing. Without doing. On the charge of absence from the duty department appellate authority, the extension of service from the mandatory retirement to the dismissal service provided two specific procedures. When the allegations contained controversial questions of fact that were alleged on the one hand and denied on the other, the department's officials were obliged to make full inquiries, however, on the face of this mismanagement record. Was, as in the absence of the duties of the appellant, on this occasion it was sufficient for the employees to follow a brief reasoning mechanism to explain the absence of any regular inquiry into the absence of duty. The service record revealed that the appellant was absent on a large number of occasions and 206 days long without any authorization. Duty option at any time, other coffee Absences from duty for the competent authority, justify the attractive appeal a mismanagement of the situation was unsatisfactory and was fined realize this. Mandatory retirement from the service appellate authority, however, proceeded to impose a substantial fine on dismissal of the employment by the impeachment final appeal order, without any proposed increase in sentencing without the opportunity to appeal. The relevant department authority should have given the appellant a meaningful hearing, if it was proposed to increase the fine. top civil advocates from Bhera lawyer