Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962

Section: 58

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 2nd April 1970, in Writ Petition No. 483 of 1967). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3)-Orders for dismissal and re-instatement in respect of Government servant respectively made by two subordinate officers under East Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 Question whether Government could competently revise such orders under r. 21, of Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1936, held, one of public importance-Leave to appeal granted to consider question-Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1936, r. 22 and East Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960. Date of hearing : 17th June 1970. ORDER M. R. KHAN, J.-The petitioner was the Sub-Treasurer in the S. D. O.'s Office, Habiganj in the district of Sylhet. The post held by him was a permanent post in the Subordinate Services of the Province of East Pakistan. On the 15th October 1958, when he was making over charge of the office of Sub- Treasurer to one Abdur Rahim, a shortage of Rs. 50,000 was detected in the currency chest of the Sub-Treasury. This detection led to the criminal prosecution of the petitioner and the Sub-Treasury Officer, Mr. Kafiluddin Ahmad for breach of trust. In the trial, they were given the benefit of doubt and were acquitted. An appeal by the Government against the order of acquittal became fruitless. Meanwhile, the petitioner was suspended from service with effect from the 17th October 1958 and charges were framed against him by the appointing authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner, Sylhet. Nothing happened to these charges. But the Deputy Commissioner framed fresh charges against the petitioner on the 26th June 1962 after the dismissal of the appeal against the order of acquittal. These fresh charges were framed in accordance with the provisions of the East Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960. The petitioner was given the required opportunity of being heard. He was also given a second notice asking him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from…