MEHTAB AHMED versus CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU, KARACHI
Sections 3 (c) (iv) / 5 (5) of the National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), Sections 25 (a), 25 (b) and 15 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional jurisdiction excluded from the High Court jurisdiction. The applicant's legal status to the applicant was not given any authority to investigate the applicant and, in the pursuance of a notice issued by an official of the National Accountability Bureau before the same applicant, the chairman should have all his assets before the NAB. , Which resulted in the RuB accepting the 15,00,000 offered by him under section 25 (a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, so the applicant's case was a national complaint. The order did not come under section 15 of the ordinance, the letter of approval for the money and its closure collector customs were formally informed of the inquiry, but nevertheless, it issued notice to the applicant stating the reason. It was alleged that his removal under section 25 (a) of this ordinance was corrupt. Applicant of the said show cause notice states that under Section 25 (a) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, he was voluntarily withdrawn from the NAB, he was discharged from all liability and his case was dismissed under section 25. Did not come under. (b) the notice of the said ordinance and hence the notice issued under section 3 (c) (iv) has been read with section 5 (5) of the Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000, which Can be done On the one hand, but still under the invalid order the applicant was removed from service, no person could be fined twice for the same offense under the law. The applicant (s) had a clean record and did not make any separate inquiries against his alleged corruption.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
