KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-- The petitioner was dismissed from the post of a D.S.P. On 28/29-7- 1961. He filed a civil suit to challenge that dismissal, but the suit failed and was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 4-6-1973. The first appeal of the petitioner also met the same fate and was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 30-10-1974. However, his revision being C.R.
No. 92 of 1975 succeeded and was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 11-10-1976, whereby his suit was decreed. The Province of Punjab filed an appeal in this Court being Civil Appeal No.129 of 1977 by special leave, which was accepted by us on 10-1-1979 and reversing the order of the High Court, we maintained the orders of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff /petitioner. The judgment of this Court is reported in Province of Punjab v. Sardar Abdul Rehman Khan Durrani PLD 1979 SC 711. The petitioner has filed the present Review Petition against the same.
2. The facts of the case are given in detail in our earlier judgment (hereinafter called as the main judgment) and it is not necessary to recapitulate the same. The present order should be read along with and in the light of aforesaid main order.
3. The first point argued by the petitioner and his learned counsel was that as he was appointed as direct recruit as a D.S.P. By the Governor, therefore, he could be dismissed only by an order of the Governor. The point leads the petitioner nowhere because he was in fact dismissed from service by order of the Governor, dated 28/29-7-1961 and by no other order of any other authority.
4. Going backward he then argued that similarly if his appointing authority was the Governor, the charge-sheet to him should also have been issued by the Governor. The position of this objection on factual plane is also the same as of the first objection mentioned above because charge-sheet, dated 27-9-1960 was issued by or by order of the Governor who saw the whole file and passed the relevant order himself on the subject after going through the case personally.
5. Going still backward he submitted that the charge-sheet above--mentioned, dated 27-9-1960 could be considered as validly issued, approved or directed by the Governor, if on that date any proceedings under West Pakistan Government Servants (Discipline and Efficiency) Rules, 1959 (briefly known as 1959 Rules) were pending which could have been continued thereunder. We have held in our main judgment that proceedings under those rules were in fact pending because earlier on 22-4-1960/25-4-1960 a charge-sheet (which has been referred to in our main judgment as the first charge-sheet) had been issued to the petitioner by the "Government"--(duly authenticated as "By Order of the Governor of the Punjab")--which we have held on the relevant date was "competent authority" for dismissing a directly recruited D.S.P. By virtue of the Police Department Delegation of Powers Rules, 1958 read with Services and General Administration Department Notification No.Tnteg-15/16-57, dated 24-2-1959 and the Rules of Business of the Government of West Pakistan (1950) as detailed in para l l of our main judgment. It may be pointed out that the petitioner had duly submitted his reply to that charge-sheet which was sub judice at the relevant the.
6. At this stage making the same point as the base viz. That the petitioner was appointed by the Governor, it has now been submitted that even, if the Governor had delegated the power to the "Government" in the matter of dismissal etc. That delegation was ultra vires inasmuch as it was in violation of Article 181(1) of 1956 Constitution which provided that "no person who is a member of a civil service of the Federation or of a Province, or of an All-Pakistan Service, or holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation, or of a Province, shall be dismissed or removed from service, or reduced in rank, by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed". It has been further submitted that during those days even though 1956 Constitution had been abrogated but according to Article 2 of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order of 1958, the country was to be governed as far as possible in accordance with the late Constitution of 1956. He also referred to Article 6 of the Order which stated that "all persons who immediately before the Proclamation were in the service of Pakistan as defined under clause (1) of Article 218 of the late Constitution and those persons who immediately before the Proclamation were in office as Governor, Judge, of the Supreme Court or a High Court, Comptroller and Auditor-General, Attorney-General or Advocate- General shall continue in the said service or in the said office on the same terms and conditions and shall enjoy the same privileges, if any." He further referred to Policy letter No. Integ-15/2-58, dated 22-3-1960 issued by the S&GA Department (0&M) Establishment Manual, Volume 2, 1966 page 215, to show the departmental construction on the subject. The point was not raised by the petitioner and his learned counsel at the the of the arguments of the appeal and nor does it find mention in the judgments of any of the Courts below and nor in the plaint. Rather in his notice under section 80 of the C.P,C. The petitioner relied on the aforesaid Delegation of Powers Rules himself. All that may be said in the, circumstances is that whether such a rider would attach to issuance of a charge-sheet also, at best may be a debatable point but that by itself is no ground to warrant review of our judgment especially when the final show-cause notice was issued and order of dismissal was in fact passed by the Governor and also because we have earlier held that in view of the authentication of the charge-sheet, dated 22/25-4-1960 as "By Order of the Governor", its validity even otherwise was not open to question.
7. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.