AWARD This petition has been submitted by one Mr. Abdul Hamid for directions under section 6 of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act. 1952. The applicant has admitted that he had been working as Coin/ Note Examiner in the State Bank of Pakistan since 1948. He has stated that on 11-6-1970, the Currency Officer of the State Bank of Pakistan lodged a report with the Senior Superintendent of Police making allegation of corruption and he was accord--ingly suspended and removed from service vide order dated 24-9-1970. He is stated to have been charged under sections 409 and 380, P. P. C. According is the applicant the charge under section 409, P. P. C was found incorrect and he was absolved of all the charges against him and as regards offence under section 380, P. P. C. No prosecution was pending against the applicant. The appli--cant bas challenged that the dismissal order dated 24-9-1970 was without jurisdiction on the ground that in view of section 7-A of the Essential Service (Maintenance) Act, 1952 read with section 6-A of the same Act, the applica--bility of any other law on the subject was excluded and as such the provisions of the State Bank of Pakistan Act were no longer applicable and action taken under State Bank of Pakistan Regulations was without any legal effect. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges against him after proper and legal trial in the Court of law and since the only factor which prevailed upon the authorities was the charge which has been proved in a Court of law to be groundless, there was no justification for insisting upon the charges any more. The applicant, therefore, prayed that directions for his re-instatement may be issued.
2. The respondent has submitted that this application under sections 6(1) and 7-A of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act was not competent before this Commission and the same is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It has been argued by the respondent that 37-A of the Act only excludes the pro--visions of any other law to the extent of inconsistency between that law and the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act and as such the State Bank of A Pakistan Act still remains in force and the authorities mentioned in the Staff Regulations have powers of control over their employee.
3. I have heard the arguments of both the parties. I agree with the view point of the respondent that the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act does not take away the application of the State Bank of Pakistan Act to these employees and action taken under the provisions of that Act was, therefore, legal.
4. The main grievance of the applicant is that he had been acquitted by the Court of Special Judge (Central) Lahore of the charge under section 409 P. P. C. But was not re-instated by the Bank. The applicant was working as a Coin/Note Examiner (Grade-I) in the Cash Branch of the State Bank of Pakistan, Lahore. On 11-6-1970 he is said to have exchanged a defaced note which was earmarked for destruction with another currency note of Rs. 100 and was caught red-handed. Thereafter on the same day he gave a statement which was incriminating. The Deputy Manager of the State Bank of Pakistan held an enquiry after recording evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the applicant was guilty of the charge. Later the enquiry proceedings were submitted to the Manager, State Bank of Pakistan who affirmed as a result of which he was dismissed.
5. The matter was also reported to the Police and he was challaned under section 409/380 P. P. C.
The learned Presiding Officer in his judgment dated 23-4-1974 held that the prosecution case qua section 409, P. P. C. Had not been proved. He, however, directed the prosecution to prosecute the applicant under section 380 P. P. C. Before the appropriate Court.
6. The applicant has now moved this Commission on the plea that despite the fact that he had been acquitted of the charge under section 409,P. P. C. He has not been re-instated. I am afraid at this stage the Commission cannot interfere in the matter for the reason that he has not been absolved; of the charge under section 380, P. P. C. Apart from this, he was found guilty during the course of enquiry and ultimately dismissal order was passed by the Manager of the Bank. I am therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the departmental officers and with these directions I dismiss the application.