Section 15 (3) (i) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 Appellant who served as cashier in the bank, after dismissing the job, after she was charged and sheer negligence against the bank / He was dismissed after inquiring into the allegations of impeachment. The mini charge against the appellant was that he got Rs 35 million, but he could not calculate the amount of Rs 2 million for which he could not provide any reliable or satisfactory explanation and, in the circumstances, the same for the appellant. The lawyer was embezzled. Because the appellant was acquitted by the Special Court under Section 249A, CCPC, he could not be dismissed or dismissed from the job. Each case had to be decided on its own facts; the nature of the two cases was independent. The facts of the present case will reveal the allegations against the appellant in the departmental proceedings that due to his negligence, a sum of Rs. Had disappeared and abused the same appellant. Of course, the gross negligence of negligence was attributed to an act which caused the bank to lose 2 million appellants, even though criminal investigations filed against him due to any scrutiny from the money filed against him. Can be bad. He could still be prosecuted due to his mismanagement / negligence, which resulted in his being dismissed and the charges against him which upheld the High Court verdict. Was, in the circumstances and the appeal was dismissed \ r \ n
