ABDUL GHAFFAR versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SOUTH ZONE, KARACHI
R 4 (b) (v) Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance (IX of 2000), Sections 3, 5, 6 and 11 Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), Section 4 was punished for dismissal of service. He was charged after issuing the showcause notice to the defendant, but kept the appellate charge against him by authorized jurisdiction after keeping the inquiry against him without any charge that he was involved in criminal cases. , But without waiting for the outcome of the said criminal case against him. He was dismissed from the job because of the allegations leveled against him by the appellant. Due to the nature of the authority, the authority had two options available; the first was to order regular court inquiry under the law or second, pending criminal. Waiting for the final results of the cases. The court of law's authority did not order a formal inquiry, nor did it await the outcome of the criminal cases against the appellant until the reasons for providing the intellect were not regularly mentioned in the show cause notice in the inquiry. In awarding a substantial fine to the Offer of Employment, there was a gross breach of the principles of natural justice in the circumstances as the appellant had already been acquitted of both criminal cases against him, on account of his employment. How the order of removal is ended, the dismissal order will be declared ineffective and irresponsible. A. At that time, proceedings against the appellant started under the provisions of the Sindh Police (Talent and Discipline) Rules 1988. When the Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance 2000 was already implemented, as was the Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance.
