Find a Lawyer

NOOR MUHAMMAD versus MEMBER (ADMIN.) CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD

Section 4 Government Employees (Talent and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R 5 Minor fine imposed on a civil servant who was accused of illegally taking some money as a pleasure, was given a show cause notice. And he was also found guilty by the inquiry officer. The competent government officers charged against them charged the government employee with the dismissal of the job, keeping the defense employee's response and inquiry report, but the appellate authority changed the dismissal penalty to two years. In relation to stopping the annual increment for the job and pointed out that the civil servant had challenged the implementation of this minor penalty and the deputy superintendent sought promotion to the position of superintendent in view of the current seniority of the public servant. Against which proper investigations should be carried out. Was conducted, ample opportunity was given to prove his innocence, CH documenting the evidence against the civil servant and considering the verbal defense of the civil servant and inquiry report against him. After doing so, he was found guilty of unlawfully pleading guilty and recommended a huge fine for dismissing appellant. The authority had already taken a soft look at his departmental appeal and changed the termination of his employment to a nominal fine of two years for withholding the annual increment and reinstated a government employee. So that there was no justification for interfering with the imposition of a minor penalty. as far as top civil advocates from Shadiwal lawyer