AMANULLAH versus DEPUTY POSTMASTER GENERAL, POSTAL REGION, SUKKUR
Sections 3, 5 (4) and 10 Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), the appellant was dismissed after issuing show cause notices, but without regular investigation against him on the charge of issuing a bogus money order. ? Appellant believed that since he denied the allegations leveled against him, no minor or major conviction was guaranteed without regular inquiry, but the prosecutor personally heard Was given the opportunity to do, but they did not. The authority benefited from the same counsel that had been in custody for two months. The proceedings against the appellant could not be called summary action as the appellant admitted at various stages in connection with the offense of issuing the bogus money order that he was issuing counterfeit money. In view of the payment of orders and postponement charges at the General Post Office, there was no compulsion to prevent admission. The soft inquiry was offered to the appellant with personal hearing opportunities, but he was unable to avail. Did not take advantage of the relationship without cause. By chance, the disputed order of dismissal against the appellant does not appear to be a summary order or a restraining order, however, no money was lost to the state exchequer and since the appellant's only crime was to be deposited late, hence the job. The extreme dismissal sentence was suspended. At the same time, the appellant could not be punished despite his voluntary admission. Sentencing for employment related to the commission of the crime has been changed from the date of his dismissal to the mandatory retirement penalty.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
