Rana Bhagwandas, ACJ.--Petitioner, while serving as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hafizabad, was served with a show-cause notice dated 6.10.2001 by Lahore High Court to show- cause as to why he be not dismissed from service. Allegations against the petitioner were that the Chief Justice and Judges of High Court, after perusing his service record, had noticed that he had been earning adverse remarks touching his integrity etcetera, in his Annual Confidential Reports. It was averred in the show-cause notice that in view of observations recorded by a Division Bench of the High Court, while disposing of Criminal Appeal No, 291 of 1994 on 28.9.1999, re-passing of sentence and fine and extending benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. being not warranted in law, he was directed to be careful. He was informed that aforesaid grounds forming basis of Annual Confidential Reports and judicial orders were matters of record, therefore, holding of regular enquiry was not considered necessary by "the Authority under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1999). Lastly, he was informed that by reason of above, he appeared to be guilty of having reputation of being corrupt, falling within the purview of Rule 3(e) of the Rules 1999, entailing one of the major penalties. Their Lordships of the High Court had, thus, ordered the issuance of notice to him to show-cause as to why penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him.
2. Faced with the above said show-cause notice, petitioner submitted a representation with the request that the notice be withdrawn and a regular enquiry be held. Said representation was, however, turned down and the Authority decided to proceed with the case. Petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the show-cause notice on 10.12.2001, refuting various allegations leveled against him and reiterating his request that regular enquiry may be initiated against him. On receipt of such reply, Mr. Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi (as he then was) was nominated by the Authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on behalf of the Authority. The said Honourable Judge, after hearing the petitioner and examining the service record as well as reply to the show-cause notice, came to the conclusion that the Officer was not fit to be retained in judicial service and, thus, proposed his removal from service under Rule 4(b) (iv) of the Rules 1999.
Petitioner was resultantly removed from service by the competent authority vide order dated 24.7.2002. After availing of the departmental remedy petitioner filed service appeal before the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore High Court (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 9.9.2005. This petition is directed against the said judgment seeking leave to appeal.
3. We have heard Hafiz Tariq Nasim, learned ASC for the petitioner and Chaudhry Muhammad Hussain, learned Additional Advocate General Punjab on behalf of the respondents.
4. Hafiz Tariq Nasim, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the question of removal or dismissal of a Judicial Officer from service on the charge of corruption was a serious matter and it should not have been finally disposed of without holding a regular enquiry into the charge of corruption. Learned counsel submitted that except for the period from 28.5.1997 to 31.12.1999, Annual Confidential Reports for remaining part of the service of the petitioner were quite satisfactory, therefore, competent Authority should not have dispensed with the holding of detailed enquiry. Learned counsel, in order to reinforce his submissions, heavily relied upon Samiuddin Qureshi v. Collector of Customs (PLD 1989 S.C. 335) (relevant at page 339) and Shabbir Hussain v.
Registrar, Lahore High ' Court (PLD 2004 S.C. 191). In Samiuddin (supra), leave to appeal was granted to consider, inter alia, the contention that there was no direct evidence to show that civil servant had accepted any illegal gratification and that the order of removal from service was based on presumptions and suppositions and, whether, proceedings under the Rules were in the nature of quasi-criminal proceedings requiring establishment of misconduct on the basis of positive evidence, free of all reasonable doubts. The question involved in the reported case would appear to be entirely distinct and different from the one confronted by the petitioner before us. An act of accepting illegal gratification in order to show some favour or to oblige the person concerned would definitely call for positive evidence to show that the incumbent had indulged in act of demanding and receiving illegal kickbacks amounting to gratification other than legal remuneration. Reported case, therefore, cannot be held to be parallel to the case of the petitioner who had consistent reputation of being corrupt, which would not be capable of proof by concrete and definite evidence, as contended. It was held in the reported case that in order to dismiss a civil servant or for that matter, any employee on a charge of taking bribe or misconduct is as serious a matter as convicting a person for a crime because his whole career is ruined. Therefore, the order of dismissal must be based on some evidence. It was held in case (supra) that finding of attempted bribe by the disciplinary authority was based on mere suspicion and the Court did not find any evidence in support of the finding. Furthermore, Enquiry Officer also, in the first instance, had given the appellant benefit of doubt, though he ought to have, on evidence before him, found that the charge against the appellant was not proved, as there was no evidence. It was in these facts and circumstances that this Court held that the conjectures or suspicion cannot take the place of proof. In our view, without expressing any cavil with the proposition of law, ratio in the reported case can hardly be attracted in case in hand.
5. Conversely, respondents have relied upon the dictum laid down by a Larger Bench of five Judges in Nawab Khan v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1994 S.C. 222). It was held in this case that the question whether a major punishment can be imposed on a civil servant without holding enquiry, would depend upon facts of each case. It was laid down that the Authorised Officer is empowered to dispense with the enquiry but he is required, by an order in writing, to inform the accused of the action proposed, along with the grounds of action and to give him reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed. It may not be out of context to point out that the appellant was duly informed that the competent authority had decided to dispense with the regular enquiry; the allegations against him were made known to him and he was afforded reasonable opportunity of personal hearing by a sitting Judge of the High Court nominated by the competent Authority. He was also informed of the proposed action, therefore, it, can safely be concluded that the Authority, before passing the impugned order, had duly complied with the provision of law and the rules of natural, justice. Thus, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that he was condemned unheard or that he was deprived of explaining his position.
6. In Shabbir Hussain v. Registrctr Lahore High Court (PLD 2004 S.C. 191), a Full Bench of this Court held that though all the civil servants are bound to be honest, having unblemished integrity yet the Judicial Officers are supposed to excel in this trait of character in view of the sacred and sensitive nature of their duties and owing to the pivotal position that justice occupies in Islam. After citing Surah 4, Verse 135 of Holy Quran, the Court proceeded to hold that Islam enjoins that those who perform the function of Judge must not only possess profound knowledge and deep insight but also be men of integrity, capable of holding the scales of justice even under all circumstances. The Court observed that Judicial Officers are expected to guard their reputation jealously and the Reporting Officers/Countersigning Officers are obligated to assess their conduct after careful consideration and without being led away by any prejudice or bias.
7. Adverting to the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner was proceeded against on account of adverse remarks for a period only of 19 months and that, such short period could not form the basis of the show-cause notice, as it had the effect of blocking his career. Factually, it may be observed that the petitioner had challenged the correctness and validity of his adverse remarks for a period of two years and seven months and preferred appeals for different periods before the Tribunal, which were dismissed on merits. He had preferred Civil Petitions Nos, 2780-L of 2001 and 2782-L of 2001 for leave to appeal and expunction of adverse remarks before this Court but the same were dismissed, after providing an opportunity of hearing to him before this Court Civil Review Petitions against the judgment were also dismissed on 27.4.2004. Nevertheless, there is no rule of law that adverse entries reflecting consistent and chronic reputation regarding lack of integrity cannot form the basis of a show-cause notice. Indeed, a larger number of appeals in Shabbir Hussain's case (supra) were directed against the judgments arising out of adverse Annual Confidential Reports. The doctrine of double jeopardy is, therefore, neither involved nor can it be argued that the petitioner has been vexed, twice for the same act.
8. Learned counsel lastly urged that the Tribunal consisted of two junior Judges of the Lahore High Court, who could hardly dare to disagree with the views of seven senior Judges of the High Court comprising Administration Committee. The argument is without any merit and wholly fallacious as there is no concept of junior Judges in the Superior Courts being treated as subordinate or subservient to the senior Judges. Since policy decisions of far reaching important consequences are taken by the Administration Committee of the High Court by convention and invariably senior most Judges are associated with such affairs. Instances are not lacking where the members of the Tribunal have set aside the disciplinary action taken by Chief Justice on the recommendation of the Administration Committee. In many petitions such decisions were brought to this Court and were either modified or upheld. This question was also dealt with in Shabbir Hussain's case (supra) and repelled with all emphasis. It was pointed out that the mere fact that two appeals before this Court had been filed by the Lahore High Court against acceptance of the appeal preferred by a Judicial Officer was sufficient for holding that composition of the Tribunal was unexceptionable and there was no force in the contention that being composed of three Judges junior to the Members of Administration Committee of the High Court, it was illusory. This Court pointed out that there was no dearth of cases where a junior Judge declined to concur with the senior Judges of the Bench and wrote a dissenting judgment. We are, thus, completely fortified by the view taken by Full Bench in a case decided only three and a half years before.
9. Having examined the case of the petitioner from every angle and given our anxious thought to the submissions made at the bar, we are of the considered view that the Officer Authorised/Authority are fully empowered to opt whether to hold a regular enquiry or not depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The case in hand having been fairly and equitably dealt with by the High Court as well as the Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court.
10.Consequently, we find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.