Find a Lawyer

SYED HAMID ALI versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD

Sections 3, 5, 6 and 10 of the Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), dismissing the appellant, who served as an Account Officer, section 4, were charged with serving them with a show cause notice and opening bogus. After being investigated against, he was fired. In partnership with the Senior Auditor and another Inquiry Committee, the FP Fund Account asked the Applicant to appear before him, recording his statement. This record did not indicate that the appellant was called or that other witnesses were examined in his presence, even material witnesses, to be allowed to be examined by the appellant. No, it was said that the error was sufficient to fail the disciplinary proceedings and the material witnesses would have to be examined. Of course, the facts are to be uncovered from facts that were not answered. Should, on the basis of inquiry, be imposed on the appellant who was weak in the eyes of the law. The appellant was also denied and was not shown a copy of the preliminary investigation report, which was considered a major penalty against him, which is a serious weakness as it would deny the appellant a reasonable opportunity to defend. The order equivalent to that was laid along the direction under which the appellant would decide against it. To be reinstated at a time when he was dismissed from employment will be considered to be absent from duty due to the Appellant. law firms from Lasbela lawyer