Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD SHOUKAT versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD

On the basis of unsatisfactory performance of the Appellants from Section 3 (1) (A), (B), 5 (4) and 10 Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 Basic Rules, FR10 Service. Removed from service. And being a non-worker due to various types of leave, he was already granted and due to his absence from the job, the reason for his retirement from the job was mainly because of medical leave. Was done Applicant was discharged six times on leave of station duty without prior permission, but on two occasions he was absent without prior leave approval but due to his advance leave no action was taken against the appellant. May be. And as far as vacation for two periods was concerned, the reason for this was medical. In the circumstances of the appellant's illness, the inquiry was not ordered as it was claimed, which was a serious legal laconia. They took disciplinary action against the appellant, as both the showcase notices were not inquired into and Neither was the reason assigned, the appellant imposed a substantial fine without distributing the inquiry into the notice and holding the court. The circumstances of the appellant's absence could not be justified in the investigation. The performance was related to the performance of the work, but the authorities did not record anything to show the allegedly unsatisfactory performance of the appellant's absence or had nothing to do with the performance of the leave; It is quite clear from the 10A that the authorities have made their alleged disqualification list of supreme court advocates from Killa Abdullah lawyer