Find a Lawyer

SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH versus AZAD GOVRNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Sacked 6, 7 and 8 civil servants were appointed as Additional Secretary, were prosecuted under various charges and upon receiving the inquiry officer's notification, the authorized officer recommended that the official be employed. And dismiss the authority which, accepting the recommendations of the Prime Minister, the authorized officer, dismissed the employee and ordered that the government employee involved in the matter should also be recovered, but the inquiry against the civil servant was non-existent. Was biased, but according to Azad Jammu and Kashmir, it was not implemented. (Talent and Discipline) Rolls, 1977 Inquiry Officer did not create a separate file for investigation and acquisition of papers, found scattered there and there, Rail file and they were not kept in a proper order. There was no material record that inquiries were made on that day, and that the pending officer was informed in accordance with Rule St. About seven days after the official employee's notice was recorded, Was recorded and there was no evidence on record that a civil servant was present to show that Whether or not a public servant was given the opportunity to inquire into the witness report clearly indicated that the facts considered by the inquiry officer in his report were not brought to the file by witnesses or by any other evidence. These were oral or documentary documents but the inquiry officer based his opinion on the facts or facts stated by the public servants. Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Performance and discipline) immigration advocates phone number from Ratto Dero lawyer