Find a Lawyer

SHAHZAD KHIZER versus ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION

Sections 3, 5 and 10 of the Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), after dismissing the Appellant from Section 4, who served as Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, were charged with the charge sheet and the mismanagement / misconduct. He was dismissed after investigating the allegations. He recommended that the reinforcement officer be fined for his dismissal from the appellant, but the competent authority imposed a large fine on his dismissal, but the allegations against the appellant were mostly about the issue of examination. Were. The relevant record told to the appellant was specific and self-explanatory and was told in detail that the appellant had the opportunity to present his response which the inquiry officer took full advantage of the inquiry in which the appellant participated in the inquiry. The participant was allowed full participation to record his evidence and record the matter before the inquiry officer till the stage of investigating the whole matter, the appellant himself refused further participation and considered it sufficient to rely on his defense. It was said that the appellant had earlier submitted the inquiry officer's report to ten speakers The result was explained on the strength of the available material available, no malicious or no. In the prosecution of the prosecutor of the Inquiry Officer for the appellant, his motive was found that no one was able to show any error in the inquiry. That the appellant may have been prejudiced in his defense did not challenge the authenticity of the record presented to the inquiry officer report. Inquiry Officer, Inquiry Officer lawer from fb area from Alipur lawyer