By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

The learned judge said that there was a mistaken albeit innocent belief thatremoval form office and being retired implied the same thing. He went further toconsider Art. 110 (5) (6) and (7) and found that they talked of removal from theoffice of a judge only but not the termination of appointment in the public servicegenerally lie then made reference to the meaning of the expression office in theservice of the Government of the United Republic as given under Art 151 (1) andcame to the view that [to] be retired form the public service is therefore a widerstep and a much more serious affair than merely to be removed from a particularoffice like the office of a judge which Art. 110 (7) is all aboutMr. Mono challenged that. He submitted that retirement from public service is notwider in scope or more serious than removal from the office of judge. In fact thelearned Senior State Attorney went further to suggest that the reverse is true. Hesaid that retirement from public service is a respectful termination of employmentAs for removal he said the consequence would depend on the cause If removalis for mental or bodily infirmity, then it would normally be retirement but if it is formisbehavior then it would be summary dismissal Mr. Mono suggested that theappellant falls under the latter category and that therefore he cannot fit anywhereelse in the public service Mr. Mono submitted that consequently the appellantgoes as he came. Whatever Mr. Mono meant by that we understood him toimply that the appellant goes away empty handed386