' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.--- Mujahid Hussain Sheikh has filed this appeal against the order dated 27-4-2001, whereby, he was dismissed from service.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that appellant was serving as District and Sessions Judge and on 24-4-2000 charge-sheet was issued against him. He filed reply, whereupon, regular inquiry was conducted against him. After completion of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer opted for imposition of minor penalty, therefore, proposed to impose minor penalty of withholding of annual increments for three years and withholding of promotion for one year whenever it became due. Within the meaning of Rule 4(1)(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants-(Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999. Thereafter, show-cause notice was issued to appellant to show cause why a minor penalty indicated above, should not be imposed upon him and on 19-8-2000, learned Inquiry Officer ordered that annual increment for three years and promotion for one year of the appellant should be withheld. However, Authority did not agree wish the report/opinion of Inquiry Officer and issued notice for enhancement of aforesaid punishment to one of the major penalties under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 and directed him to submit reply within ten days from the date of receipt of notice. The appellant filed reply. Then final show- cause notice was issued and after granting him opportunity of personal hearing, the Authority dismissed him from service vide order dated 27-4-2001. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. As mentioned above, the appellant was serving as District and Sessions Judge. He was posted at Hafizabad when on some complaints, following charge-sheet was served upon him on 24-4- 2000:-- "(a)(i) That while working as District and Sessions Judge, Hafizabad, 39 Advocates of District Bar Association, Hafizabad, made a complaint Annexure "A" containing allegations that you acquitted the accused in murder cases after receiving illegal gratification and you convicted innocent persons after receiving bribe from the complainants.
(ii) That the Traders Board, Hafizabad, addressed a complaint dated 17-12-1999 to the Honourable Chief Justice signed by Sh. Naseer Ahmad, Chairman and Mr. Amjad Ali Qadri, General Secretary, Annexure "B" demanding inquiry into the complaint Annexure "A". A news item about the complaint was published in the Daily "Asas", Lahore dated 15-12-1999 Annexure "C" Daily "Jang", Lahore, dated 15-12-1999 Annexure "D", Daily "Awaz", Lahore dated 15-12-1999 Annexure "E", Daily "Sahafat", Lahore, dated 14-12-1999 Annexure "F" and Daily "Khabrain", Lahore, dated 18-12-1999 Annexure "G".
(b) That a complaint Annexure "H" from Mr. Tahir Jamil Kang, Advocate and eight other Advocates of District Bar Association, Hafizabad, was made against you containing the allegations that you had leased a Canteen in the compound of Sessions Court, Hafizabad, and allowed it to function during the month of Ramzan violating the provisions of Ihtirami-Ramazan Ordinance, 1981, inasmuch as you yourself did not observe fast.
(c) That a complaint Annexure "J" was made against you signed by a delegation consisting of Ch. Qamar Javed and twelve other advocates of District Bar Association, Hafizabad, branding you as a corrupt Judicial Officer, who has jeopardized integrity of lawyers and made a mockery of Court of justice in the eyes of public and alleging that you received illegal gratification in the following cases:--
(i) Case F.I.R. No,337 of 1998 dated 8-11-1998 registered at Police Station Jalalpur Bhattian, under sections 302, 324, 148/149, P.P.C. It was alleged that you granted pre-arrest bail to the accused who had remained absconders for 11 months and armed with kalashnikovs and fired effective shots on the body of the deceased and the injured P.Ws.
(ii) Case F.I.R. No,451 dated 14-9-1997 under section 302, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, City Hafizabad. It was alleged that you acquitted the accused after receiving huge bribe.
(iii) Pre-arrest bail titled "Riasat Ali v. State" under Allopathic System, 1962. It was alleged that despite the fact that the offence being bailable, you rejected the bail application on 10-11-1999 as the accused did not pay any bribe to you.
(iv) Case F.I.R. No,302 of 1999 titled "State v. Ijaz" under section 302, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station City Hafizabad. It was alleged that despite the pardon tendered by the parents to the accused Ijaz, you sentenced the accused, to 14 years imprisonment without any evidence as they did not fulfil your demand of illegal gratification.
(v) Case F.I.R. No,250 of 1996 under section 302, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Kassoki District Hafizabad titled "State v. Amir". It was alleged that the accused were acquitted after receiving huge amount as bribe."
' After receiving his reply, regular inquiry was conducted. However, learned Inquiry Officer opted for imposition of minor penalty. Paras.33 and 34 of the Inquiry Report read as under:-- "Question which further arises is whether the accused Judge should be given major or minor penalty. Since the charges which stand proved against him are violation of rules and highly irregular exercise of discretion without there being any concrete proof of getting pecuniary advantage with his service record which I have carefully scrutinized and do not find any adverse entry in his ACR dossier, I will opt for imposition of minor penalty.
' In the exercise of powers conferred on me as an Enquiry officer under rule 7(a) I hold the charges referred to above to have been proved and I propose to impose a minor penalty of withholding of annual increments for three years and also withholding of promotion for one year whenever it becomes due, within the meaning of rule 4(a)(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999. An opportunity should be afforded to the accused Judge of showing cause as to why action proposed by me be not taken. A show-cause notice shall be issued to him to appear on 19-8-2000 at 10 a.m. To show cause why minor penalty indicated above, should not be imposed against him."
' Thereafter, show-cause notice was issued to him as to why action proposed by Inquiry Officer be not taken against him and after receiving his reply, learned Inquiry Officer imposed aforesaid penalty. However, Authority did not agree with the opinion of Inquiry Officer and imposed major penalty and dismissed the appellant from service. We have examined the record and find that the appellant was recruited as Additional District and Sessions Judge in the year, 1988 and later on he was promoted as District and Sessions Judge. The complaint was filed against him when he was serving as District and Sessions Judge, A Hafizabad in the year, 2000. We have carefully seen ACR dossier of the appellant. His service record throughout was unblemished and earlier he received good reports. There was no adverse entry in his previous ACRs, Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he reached the age of superannuation on 7-8-2004. So, it is clear that if appeal is allowed, he would not be reinstated into service. As stated above, learned Inquiry officer too opted minor penalty keeping in view facts of the case. We have seen the record carefully and we find that imposition of major penalty i,e, dismissal from service is not called for as the same is excessive/harsh. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for converting the punishment of dismissal from service to that of compulsory retirement. In our opinion, in the circumstances of the case, his request is reasonable considering the fact that appellant has already retired from service, as also for the reason that learned Inquiry Officer also opted for imposition of a minor penalty.
Reliance can be placed upon the case of Fida Muhammad Khan v. Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and another 1996 PLC (C.S.) 1103. This judgment was challenged before Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan but appeal was dismissed Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and another v. Fida Muhammad Khan 1996 PLC (C.S.) 7000. So, we partly accept this appeal, order of dismissal is modified to that of compulsory retirement and, in our opinion, this would meet the ends of justice.
' No order as to costs.