1. 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.
2. 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 service. The petitioner showed cause and denied the charges levelled against him. Not being satisfied with the reply, the Deputy Commissioner found the petitioner guilty of `inefficiency' and dismissed him from service with retrospective effect from the 15th October 1958 on which date he had been suspended. On appeal, the Additional Commissioner, Chittagong set aside the order of dismissal and ordered for his re-instatement. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to join his service. Later on, the Government brought a money suit against the petitioner and the Sub-Treasury Officer for the recovery of Rs. 50,000, but the suit was dismissed on the 28th February 1967. Thereafter, the Government issued a direction on the 21st September 1967 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Sylhet to dismiss the petitioner from service.
3. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, by his order, dated the 26th September 1967, once again dismissed the petitioner with immediate effect. The petitioner filed a writ petition calling in question this second order of dismissal, dated the 26th September 1967. The question that arose in the writ petition was whether the Government had the power to revise the order of the Additional Commissioner re-instating the petitioner and whether the Government's direction to dismiss the petitioner was lawful. The learned Judges of a Division Bench of the High Court of East Pakistan held that under Rule 22 of Part III of the Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1936, the Government still possesses the power of revising any order passed by any authority subordinate to it and, in that view of the matter, held that the order of the Government revising the order of the Additional Commissioner and directing the dismissal of the petitioner were lawful. The writ petition was, accordingly, dismissed by the learned Judges. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court.
4. Rule 22 of the Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1936 runs thus "22. Nothing in these rules shall preclude the Local Government from revising, whether on its own motion or otherwise, any order passed by an authority subordinate to it in exercise of powers conferred on such authority by these rules."
5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the power of revision is not available to the Government under this rule 22 inasmuch as the first order of dismissal of the petitioner and the Additional Commissioner's order setting aside the order of dismissal were both made not under the Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1936, but under the East Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960.
6. The point raised is one of public importance and merits consideration. Leave is, accordingly, granted as prayed. Security shall be in the sum of Rs. 1,000.
7. It appears from the deputy commissioner's order, dated the 5th May 1970, a copy of which has been placed before us, that the petitioner, on his own prayer, has been granted leave preparatory to retirement. If the Government still treats the petitioner to be in service, he may be allowed to avail of the leave preparatory to retirement already granted to him. With this observation, the prayer for stay of the operation of the impugned order is refused.