MUHAMMAD AKBAR SARKI versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL (FIA)
Sections 3, 5, and 10 serve tribunals act (LXX of 1973), the enforcement of major penalties for dismissing appellant from service as a section 4 sub-inspector, for smuggling of liquor into the record room and possession of alcohol. Action was taken against. The appellant was declared a suspect against the appellant and the inquiry officer and recommended a modest fine to prevent two additions, but the Director General's FIA dismissed the appellant on the inquiry report. The prosecution failed to produce any witnesses who allegedly saw the appellant holding / possessing bottles of whiskey in a store company authority, alleging the appellant was guilty of gross negligence by the inquiry officer's recommendation. Was given. Only suspicions / assumptions, though strong, even I, could not find evidence that the officer was not justified in recommending minor fines, unless it was beyond reasonable doubt that The appellant has been charged with major fines for removing the appellant from a competent authority without recording any competent and compelling reason. The law as a whole was against the competent authority, they had no power. It cannot arbitrarily increase fines without interpreting the principles of the law of \ Audi Ultram Partem. Such principles were to be applied not only by the courts, but also by executive and administrative officials, alleging that the public servant was entitled to be dismissed from the charge, if not beyond any doubt.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
