MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SIDDIQI versus MANAGING DIRECTOR (DISTRIBUTION) POWER, WAPDA, LAHORE
R5 (iv) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 employee has been deposed to serve with the provincial government for a specified period, despite repeated demands for his position. Failed to report to department for expiry of His department employee was removed from employment by the competent authority as a result of disciplinary action, however, the department's authority reduced such punishment and changed it to an early stage of the time scale in its grade (BPS 18). done. There was no justification for a job failure. After the return order was approved, his parents had to report back to the department upon the expiry of their return order, not to report the employees back to their department in the employee's department. There was a clear reason for the absence of intentionality and willfulness. Upon receiving notification of the action against them under disciplinary rules that the employee's repatriation order has been ordered by Parvinia.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
us immigration advocates from Dijkot lawyer
