The reduction of rank 5 and 6 appellant, who was a senior research officer, was asked to explain its status in relation to poor construction of bridges and its supervisory responsible for its failure to overcome certain irregularities. As an officer, his applicant's explanation was found to be satisfactory. By the General Manager / Authorized Authority, it was reduced to a Junior Research Officer case was summarily dealt with and no regular inquiry was made. No conscious decision was taken under Rule 5 (iii). Authority was adopted under the course of preliminary technical inquiry reached R5 (Iiv) instead of Rule 6 of WAPDA's competency and discipline in which the appellant was not a party nor in the presence of the appellant against it. No evidence was filed, nor was the opportunity given to the witnesses to cross over. During the preliminary inquiry, the proceedings against him were declared ex parte and the appellant was denied the opportunity to refuse.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
