Find a Lawyer

RAB NAWAZ HINGORO versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, KARACHI

Rr 4 (1) (b) (iii), 5 and 6 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), convicting the appellant regarding the penalty for dismissal of section 4 service after issuing and holding a notice of punishment. given. The allegations against the appellant about the inquiry into some illegal acts and serious irregularities in the execution of their duties were almost based on documentary evidence, which copies were provided to them and on any occasion they were false. It is not proved that the appellant did not allege any personal enmity. Neither the unlawful desire of the appellant nor his superior officers was questioned / challenged on the neutrality of the inquiry officer nor any inquiry officer accused of any illicit desire or enmity against the witnesses who had recorded their statements before the appellant. Who did not even challenge the authenticity and authenticity of the documents. Prior to the inquiry officer was investigated by the Anti-Corruption Authority, although the appellant was not pardoned, the criminal proceedings and the prosecution could be concurrent and the mere acquittal / pardon of the criminal case / charge. There was no restriction for initiating disciplinary proceedings at the departmental level. Appellant requested that the department's action was not in accordance with the law even though the appellant identified any irregularity and illegality in the said proceedings. Not done, but technical matters, which were typical of the legal process I, all of the legal status of departmental proceedings could not put pressure on his serve in the testing was essential requirements of compliance and strength in their law websites from Mehmood Kot lawyer