MUHAMMAD AKHLAQ versus PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PRIME MINISTER SECRETARIAT MUZAFFARABAD, AZAD KASHMIR
Sections 3 and 5 compulsory retirement employee, who has been absent from duty for 10 days, has retired from employment without having to take the opportunity to hear the law, without having to conclude any investigation, investigating the allegation. Was deemed mandatory under the provisions. From the Service (Special Powers) Act 2001, sections 3 and 5 of the removal of independent Jammu and Kashmir and the competent authority had to constitute an inquiry committee. And if after the inquiry and the law, the charge is proved and the competent authority is satisfied that the allegation is proved, proceedings under Section 3 (2) of the removal of Jammu and Kashmir independent of the Government Employee (Special Powers) Act. May be made, under subsection (2) of section 3 of the 2001 Act, no person shall be given an opportunity where the competent authority is satisfied that the security of Azad Jammu and Kashmir or Pakistan or any part thereof. In the interest of, it was not necessary to take advantage of such an opportunity, but the exception stated in the exception could not be exercised at its discretion. The reason for not providing such an opportunity would have to be taken off the record, on the basis of allegations that the person cannot be removed from the service without confirmation of the hearing. Based on the Maxim Audi Ultium Perium, timely testing, that is, nobody could be punished without giving it a chance to be heard, in the present case, there was no inquiry again. Employees were condemned for non-hearing and arbitrary orders were made against them without any lawful act, which was set aside and the employee restored to employment. Was.
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2014
