Find a Lawyer

NASEER AHMED UPPAL versus PAKISTAN WAPDA

West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 Section 17 (1A) Rules of the Supreme Court 1980, OXXV, R1 Review of the Supreme Court decision in which the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the service tribunal. Yes, all of the grounds provided by the Service Tribunal were invalid. And Section 17 (1A), the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, is not available to decide on the validity of the action under the service tribunal, not strictly following the instructions was not a process which The order will be called. Removal from service; was not sustainable; the order under section 17 (1A) of Act XXXI of 1958, was not a prejudicial order; rather, an order canceling a service facilitator was, in effect, preceded by an employee's error. Didn't have to face Correspondingly: The next charge against the employee was that as a divisional accountant, he failed to maintain the correct copy of the contract document which was to be paid in respect of such failure and encouraged payment, There was a possibility of making false payments and more. The case was investigated under the Government Employees (Talent and Discipline) Rules 1973, and the matter was examined under the Government Employees (Priority and Discipline) Rules, 1973, making such allegation false. Understanding that the Assessment Service Tribunal made a wrong finding that the job was not sustainable. Incorrect, because, the test applied by the service tribunal was a plausible order that was not a valid test. Under the High Court jobs for fresh advocates from Jandanwala lawyer