MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA KAMAL versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION/CHAIRMAN FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMAB
Sections 3 (1) (e), 5 and 8 Inquiry proceedings The consensus of the competent authority with recommendations / opinion from the inquiry officer / committee or the recommended official officer, in this case and in the case of such disagreement, binding authority Will be. Describe the proper and valid reasons for such an order, where such order may be passed, where the inquiry committee failed to investigate the alleged allegation, or the opinion of the members of such committee was divided or the inquiry to form an opinion The action was not enough. The previous inquiry should be for justice not for correction or for wrongdoing, but for the defect in the previous inquiry, or for the evidence to be presented or not presented for legitimate reasons in the previous inquiry. Washing the previous action and throwing it into the waste basket will not have any effect, the employee will have full opportunity to defend himself in the de novo inquiry and may rely on the evidence presented in the previous inquiry, in the case of the de novo inquiry, ex. An opinion notice issued by a competent authority on the basis of opinion will lose its legal effect.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
