This appeal by the appellant who was an Enforcement Officer in the Road Transport Department is against the dismissal by Vohrah J., on September 27, 1980 of his claim for a declaration, as the core of the relief he seeks, that the termination of his service in the public interest under section 10(d) of the Pensions Ordinance, 1951 and General Order 44 of the General Orders contained in the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) (General Orders, Chapter D) Regulations, 1969 set out in the Schedule to the Essential (General Orders, Chapter D) Regulations, 1969 was void, inoperative and of no effect. To obviate prolixity, all references in this judgment to General Orders allude to the General Orders (abbreviated as 'GO' in relation to both singular and plural according to the context) enacted in the 1969 Regulations which have since been repealed with effect from July 17, 1980 except for GO 44 which is deemed to have been repealed on December 30, 1978 and replaced by the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) (Chapter "D") General Orders, 1980 but which do not however affect these proceedings.

The appellant was appointed as an Enforcement Officer on probation on April 17, 1961 and placed on the pensionable establishment on April 17, 1964. He was posted for duty in several States and on April 16, 1969 he was appointed Acting Registrar and Inspector of Motor Vehicles with an acting allowance and transferred to Johore as such on April 21, 1969. He was interdicted from duty on April 30, 1969 consequent to his arrest on a charge of attempted corruption but was acquitted on July 30, 1970. He resumed duty on August 22, 1970 as an Enforcement Officer and was not reinstated as Acting Registrar and Inspector of Motor Vehicles but he has now abandoned the contention raised in the court below as to alleged reduction in rank in this respect.

The Public Services Commission wrote to the appellant on May 22, 1971 stating that from a report from the Director General of Road Transport he appeared to be in control of pecuniary resources and property disproportionate to his official emoluments and known private means, and that the Disciplinary Authority had considered the report and had decided to take disciplinary action against him under GO 8 and requiring him to submit an explanation within 14 days. The appellant submitted his explanation as required by a letter dated June 19, 1971 followed by another letter on August 1, 1971, and he was informed by the Secretary to the Public Services Commission by a letter dated August 13, 1971 that his explanation had been considered on July 19, 1971 by the Public Services Commission which had recommended to the Government, the 2nd respondent, the action which ought to be taken against him and that he would be informed by the Director General of Public Services, the 1st respondent (in the Malay rendition), of the decision made in this respect.

The 1st respondent then informed the appellant in a letter dated October 13, 1971 that in exercise of the powers conferred by the Pensions Ordinance the 2nd respondent had decided to terminate his service in the public interest under section 10(d) of the Ordinance and GO 44 and that the termination would be effective as soon as he had taken all the leave he was entitled to and that the question of his eligibility to receive a pension would be dealt with by the 2nd respondent in accordance with the Ordinance. The appellant put in written appeals against the termination of his service to the Registrar and Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Johore, the 1st respondent, the Secretary to the Public Services Commission and other officials, but he was informed that the Public Services Commission had no authority to consider any appeal against a decision under the Pensions Ordinance and the GO. The appellant's record of service discloses that he retired from the public service on December 8, 1971.

The gist of the appellant's complaint is that the termination of his se