Find a Lawyer

AKHTAR HAYAT versus WAPDA

Section 17 (1A) authorization to remove services was given to the authority in accordance with the relevant law and the chairman who jointly constituted the authority terminated the appellant and ordered the removal of the immovable order. Had expressed in clear opinion about this. In pursuance of the decision made by them, the Appellant's case was examined separately by each Member and Chairman and was not placed before them at a joint meeting, but it was not required under the Constitution that every Member and Chairman's opinion The expression was not material; what was the material was the expression of opinion which was expressly expressed, so the meeting of the Authority was not required for consideration as the law does not order that the decision in relation to the termination of employment is the sole authority. Can be taken at the formal meeting of There was a need for the relevant and the chairman to support this decision, which was explicitly ordered to be removed from there. attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Shahkot lawyer