Find a Lawyer

EJAZ ALI BUGTI versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, ANTI-NARCOTICS FORCE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN RAWALPINDI

Rr 3, 4 (1) (b) (iv), 5 & 6 Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), after the Appellant was removed from service and issued a show cause notice on allegations of misuse and disqualification of Section 4. He was fired. The main allegation against the appellant was that he resorted to aerial shootings and threatened to file a criminal case against his superiors, stating that he had been arrested, but a Judicial Magistrate. Through which they were acquitted of all charges. The course of disciplinary action that undermined his reputation in the eyes of the law. In the first place, the charge sheet was defective under sub-rule (1) of R6 of the Government Employees (Performance and Discipline) Rules, 1973, because it did not identify the penalties upon which to impose the appellant second. In view of this, the inquiry report did not state whether the witnesses were examined in the presence of the appellant or were allowed to examine them, in which the exemption from the authorities was granted by the government employees (competent and Discipline) was a serious violation of all Rule III of Rule 1973. Third, the material on record did not provide any evidence about the inquiry report before it was punished for a large fine. Fourth, the Judicial Magistrate acquitted the Appellant in the criminal case filed against him. The allegations against the appellant in this case were the same as those given in the showcase notice which formed the basis for his dismissal. In the end, the record revealed that the inquiry officer had notified the terminating officer patent advocate from Killa Abdullah lawyer