Find a Lawyer

SECRETARY KASHMIR AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN AREAS DIVISION, ISLAMABAD versus SAEED AKHTAR

Sections 3 (1) and 5 (4) of the Basic Rules, R 29 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 212 (3), gave the charge sheet and showcases notice to the government employee on corruption charges for corruption. Government employees, in their response, dismissed the allegations claiming that they had been falsely implicated in the case, and replied that they were found to be unsatisfactory, under section 3 (1) of the removal from service. In use, unauthorized authority to resort to full inquiry. (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, Government employees were charged with reduced pay scale reduction penalties with no prior effect and without having to specify the duration of the banned penalty, the trial proceedings violated the rules. As well as serious legal weaknesses. The penalty period was not set as 29 of the basic rules and the major fines were imposed with disappointment The inquiry officer thus went beyond the scope of the inquiry to ensure he was in the ranks with the actual dispute. The deficiency demanded a large fine and the required full inquiry and inquiry service (special powers) could not be granted under section 5 (4) of the Ordinance, 2000, the leave to appeal was dismissed. advocate for immigration from Burewala lawyer