' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.--- These four petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the same order, dated 15-10-2004 passed in Service Appeals Nos.44, 56, 57 and 55 of 2001, whereby all appeals were dismissed by the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore High Court, Lahore. The C.P.L.A. No,2742 of 2004 is directed against the dismissal of the petitioner from service while other three petitions are against the adverse A.C.Rs, recorded for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999, hence these petitions.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was transferred from Gujranwala to Narowal. Two complaints against him were received by the District Judge, Gujranwala who submitted his report to Honourable Chief Justice, Lahore High Court, Lahore, with regard to his misconduct as to the receipt of illegal gratification through Naib Qasid Muhammad Munir when one complainant Mst.
Bashiran also complained to have paid sum of Rs,95,000 to the above named Naib Qasid for the petitioner and subsequently the complainant received back the money. However, on receipt of report from the District Judge Gujranwala, the Honourable Chief Justice as Authority appointed Mr. Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani (as he then was) as Authorised Officer to proceed against the petitioner under the provisions of Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975. The Authorised Officer charge-sheeted the petitioner with five charges and Ch. Iftikhar Hussain learned District and Sessions Judge, Vehari, was appointed as an Inquiry Officer who after recording the evidence of both parties arrived at the conclusion against the petitioner holding him to be corrupt as such guilty of misconduct and recommended imposition of any of the major penalties. The Authorised Officer on receipt of report issued show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why major penalty should not be recommended. The petitioner submitted his reply whereafter recommendations were submitted to the authority which Authority issued show-cause notice to the petitioner under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 for personal hearing. Mr. Justice Tanvir Ahmad Khan (as he then was) was nominated as Hearing officer on behalf of the Authority who after affording the petitioner opportunity of hearing passed an order on 26-2-2000 dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner's representation/appeal before the Governor of Punjab also failed. The petitioner then preferred appeal before the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal which heard the petitioner and dismissed his appeal vide impugned judgment, hence, these petition.
3. We have heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel for the caveator and perused the record.
4. Petitioner has submitted the same submissions which he made before the Tribunal for conversion of his penalty from dismissal to compulsory retirement on compassionate ground that he has served for about thirty-six years with unblemished record. Learned counsel for the caveator has opposed the submission made by the petitioner on the ground that in view of the charge of corruption as misconduct, which stood proved, the petitioner was not entitled to any leniency in the punishment awarded by the Authority and maintained by the Tribunal.
5. We do not find merit and substance in the submission of the petitioner and find force and substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the caveator.
6. No legal or factual infirmity has been pointed out or asserted by the petitioner in the judgment.
There is over-whelming evidence on the record which indicate that the charges of corruption as misconduct was proved against the petitioner beyond reason of doubt. Perusal of the petitioner's remarks for the years 1997 to 1999 also indicate that the petitioner was reputed to be corrupt and enjoyed bad reputation, hence not fit for even promotion. The petitioner cannot be granted any premium for his misconduct or corruption which is considered highest degree of disqualification of a Judicial officer which cannot be permitted. No ground for conversion of punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement is made out in view of the charge of corruption amounting to misconduct which stood proved beyond reason of doubt against the petitioner.
7. In the circumstances petitions have no merit and substance consequently leave is declined and the petitions are dismissed.