P L D 1967 Dacca 788 (PLP)

There can be no manner of doubt whatsoever that the recommendation of the Screening Committee was to compulsorily retire the plaintiff on the ground of inefficiency. This is the plain meaning of the language as quoted above. It is incapable of any other meaning and it cannot certainly be construed as a recom mendation against the plaintiff on the ground of misconduct which is a well‑understood term of such a context. In pursuance of the aforesaid recommendation the impugned order reads as follows:‑ (4) "In exercise of powers conferred on him by sub‑clause (b) of clause (5) of Article 6 of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958, the Governor has been pleased to order retirement of Maulvi Murzuqullah, Deputy Magistrate and Dy. Collector, on probation, lately employed Circle Officer, Cox's Bazar, Chittagong (under suspension) from service with effect from the date of this order for inefficiency. By order of the Governor (Sd.) M. Azfar, Chief Secy. to the Govt. of East Pakistan." The impugned order is an order of compulsory retirement of the plaintiff on the ground of inefficiency as plainly and expressly stated in the order itself. The question now is: Can an Officer under the Government be compulsorily retired on the ground of inefficiency under the powers quoted in the impugned order? With regard to this we would like to quote the language of the Rules which permitted the screening out of an official on the ground of inefficiency. Rule 2 (c) of the Public Conduct (Scrutiny) Rules, 1959 initially permitted such a course and reads as follows:‑ "(c) is inefficient, or has ceased to be efficient and is not likely to recover his efficiency‑ The Rule came into force on the 21st of January 1959. Thereafter on the 28th of February 1959, the aforesaid Rule was amended and it was notified on the said date as Public Conduct (Scrutiny) Rules, 1959 (Amendment) and marked as S. R. O. 87, 28th February 1959 (Gazette Extraordinary, 2nd March 1959), which reads as follows:‑ "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 8 of the Public Conduct (Scrutiny) Ordinance, 1959. The Central Government is pleased to direct that the following amendments be made in the Public Conduct (Scrutiny) Rules, 1959, namely :‑ In the said Rules,‑ (a) in rule 1, sub‑rule (3) shall be omitted; (b) in rule 2, clause (c) shall be omitted." The legal position, therefore, is that on and after the 28th February 1959 there cannot be any screening of an official under the aforesaid Ordinance on the ground of inefficiency. This follows from the plain language of the amendment itself: The appeal, therefore fails before us on the two grounds which were canvassed on behalf of the appellant. We accordingly dismiss the appeal without any order as to costs. Before parting with this case we would like to observe that on behalf of the appellant our attention was drawn to an unreported judgment pronounced on 8‑2‑1967 by a Division Bench of this Court in Appeal from Appellate Decrees Nos. 803 and 804 of 1965 (Province of East Pakistan v. A. K. M. Rezaul Karim and another). It should be noticed that there the purported order was on the ground of misconduct. We are not called upon to say whether in the light of the facts of the aforesaid case misconduct was proved or not. But the point to be noticed is that in the aforesaid case the impugned order was not passed on the ground of inefficiency as in this case. This is the plain point of distinction between the two cases and it is important to remember this. We would further like to observe that the attention of the Court was not drawn to the amendment, as stated above. In any event, we are not concerned with the point because in the case before us the impugned order was passed on the ground of inefficiency. ABDULLA, J.‑I agree.. . Appeal dismissed.