Find a Lawyer

SHAH NAWAZ SAHETO versus DEPUTY POST MASTER GENERAL/ APPELLATE AUTHORITY

Removal of Section 3 (1) (b), 5 and 10 Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 Service Appellant was charged with removal of his job after issuing a show cause notice, but They were charged without questioning. By issuing a fake PT-24 receipt, he received an illegal settlement fee, which issued a showcase notice based on the Vigilance team's report, which was confirmed by the appellant of the two-member committee, however, from this action. Was not associated Verification by the two members mentioned above, the regular / regular inquiry of the committee's validation could not be made, the proceedings of the two members committee could not be substituted for regular inquiry proceedings. It is advisable to examine at least some of the licensees, but this is not the case when the allegations are disputed by the appellant. T, regular inquiry was required, but no regular inquiry was conducted famous high court advocate from Jandanwala lawyer