Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD IDREES versus CHAIRMAN, WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE

Rr 3 (b), 4 (1) (b) (iv) and 6 A Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 Service Tribunals (Code of Conduct), 1974, R 7 Service appeal dismissed from appellant, dismissed. The service had filed an appeal against his dismissal order because of corruption, the authority was resisted on two grounds by the authority, the first being that the appellant filed the appeal before the service tribunal. And secondly, the executive engineer who has passed the dismissal order against the appellant. The appellant did not form a party, the department's appeal was not filed if the executive engineer had granted sanction against the appellant, but it was not applied to the appeal because the respondent's rule of service tribunals (Rules), 1974 7 It was clearly stated that in each memo appealed, the authorized authority against whom the appeal is preferred will be shown as respondent. Service Tribunals (Code of Conduct) was violated on 7 of 1974; the appeal filed by the appellant was liable on the basis that the retention was terminated as the appellant filed an appeal against the WAPDA. And said that the Executive Engineer was an employee of Wapda. Despite the executive engineer's non-inclusion, the authority was properly defended because the executive engineer was not discriminated against by the non-inclusion of the executive engineer, so moving the appellant from one place to another was discriminatory. Was not done Second, because many other employees have been transferred and secondly, the Appellant ask a advocate free from Lower Dir lawyer