Ijaz-ul-Hassan, J.--The above captioned appeals, with leave of the. Court, have been filed by Fazal Ahmed Naseem Gondal, appellant, against judgments dated 28.9.2007 passed by the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore High Court, Lahore, challenging appellant's dismissal from service as well as adverse remarks recorded in his annual confidential reports.
2. Relevant facts giving rise to the filing of instant appeals are, that appellant joined Police department on 2.10.1979 as Prosecutor and served the Police and Law department for about 7 years. On 24.1.1987 appellant was inducted in the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary. Appellant while serving as Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Rajanpur, was served with a charge sheet for 'misconduct' and 'corruption' within the purview of Rule 3(b) and (c) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1999. Regular inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer found charges of 'misconduct' and 'corruption' proved against the appellant, recommended imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service and issued notice to appellant to offer his explanation against the proposed penalty. The appellant filed reply. After providing him opportunity of personal hearing, the Authority dismissed appellant from service. The appellant filed departmental review/representations which remained unresponded. The appellant, feeling aggrieved, preferred appeals before the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore High Court, Lahore.
Service Appeal No, 17/2004 challenging dismissal of the appellant from service has been dismissed on merit, whereas Service Appeal Nos, 49/2002, 11/2005 and 13/2005, concerning expunction of adverse remarks in his annual confidential reports, have been disposed of as having become infructuous vide impugned judgments.
3. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Zakria Sh., learned Advocate for the appellant and Qazi Muhammad Amin, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent, in the light of the material on the file.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the appellant in total disregard to the fact that appellant has 25 years unblemished service to his credit and without any complaint, what so ever, from any quarter. The learned counsel reiterated that the evidence on record has not been appreciated in its true perspective and appellant has been found guilty of 'misconduct' and 'corruption' without any solid ground, resulting in complete failure of justice. To substantiate the contentions, reliance has been placed on Samiuddin Qureshi versus Collector of Customs, (PLD 1989 S.0 335) and S.M. Tufail Ahmad versus Kafiluddin Ahmad and others, (1986 PLC (C.S) 339).
5. Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment, whole heartedly and prayed for its sustenance.
6. A perusal of the record would reveal, that the Inquiry Officer, while giving his findings has taken into consideration the reference sent by the District and Sessions Judge, Rajanpur, resolution of District Bar, Mianwali, adverse remarks recorded in the annual confidential reports of the appellant and the statements of prosecution witnesses and other material on the file. It may be pertinently mentioned here that during appellant's posting at Rajanur, from July 2002 till he relinquished the charge, twenty-one transfer applications containing serious allegations of corruption were moved against the appellant. The President of District Bar, Rajanpur and other members of the Bar had been complaining against the integrity and reputation of the appellant. In three transfer applications, the appellant was accused of having flouted the orders of the District and Sessions Judge, Rajanpur and announced the judgments/orders despite stay proceedings by the appellate Court.
7. It stands establish from the material on record that fair and proper inquiry was conducted and appellant was afforded full opportunity of personal hearing to clarify his position but he failed to do so. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality or irregularity in the mode and manner of inquiry proceedings.
8. Adverting to the objection that the appellant has been condemned unheard, it holds no ground because the appellant attended the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer and also cross- examined the witnesses produced in the case.
9. In view of the above, we find no merit in these appeals, which are hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.