' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Both the appeals directed against single judgment of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore with the leave of this Court relate to the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant/Civil Judge First Class. By the impugned judgment, learned Members of the Tribunal have altered the punishment of dismissal of appellant from service to compulsory retirement from service.
2. The appellant, while serving as Civil Judge First Class in Mandi Baha-ud-Din and Ahmadpur East, respectively was proceeded against on the following allegations:--- "(1) That while posted as Civil Judge, Mandi Baha-ud-Din, you had not reached the Court time on 3-9-1991 without any valid reason when the Inspection Judge Mr. Justice(Retd.) Akhtar Hassan paid surprise visit to the Civil Courts, the local Bar made complaints against you and he observed your integrity not above board.
(2) That in the Annual Confidential Report for the period 1-1-1991 to 17-10-1991 your integrity, financial position, relations with superiors etc. Were adversely commented upon by the Reporting Officer.
(3) That on 25-4-1993 while posted as Civil Judge/Judge, Family Court, Ahmadpur East, District Bahawalpur, in case "Allah Nawaz alias Muhammad Nawaz v. Abdul Sattar and others", a family Court case, you demanded illegal gratification to do favour to the defendants, settled the same at Rs,4,000 in your retiring room, received Rs,2,000 through and in presence of Ghulam Qasim Naib Qasid of the Civil Courts from Ramzan defendant and the remaining amount was to be paid to said Ghulam Qasim by said Muhammad Ramzan, on the following day i,e, 26-4-1993.
(4) That on 26-4-1993 in the Court premises at Ahmadpur East, Muhammad Ramzan paid Rs,2,000 to said Ghulam Qasim, who was caught red-handed by a Magistrate in a raid arranged by Anti- Corruption Police at Bahawalpur on the complaint of Muhammad Ramzan in which you were specifically named a day earlier i,e, on 25-4-1993 and the tainted currency notes of Rs,2,000 were recovered from the Naib Qasid.
(5) That while posted at Ahmadpur East you used to leave the headquarters invariably on each Thursday by train for Lahore before time, enjoy casual leave for Saturday, thus, failed to perform your duty two days a week, your reputation was not good as per the report of Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, your attitude with the Bar and the litigant public was too harsh, you avoided recording the statements of witnesses or got recorded from your Court officials and the cases used to be adjourned unnecessarily including the cases in which parties had compromised, intentionally delaying the matter so that the litigants may contact you, also you used to meet the litigant public in your retiring roam and there was a spate of transfer applications against you."
3. A regular inquiry was conducted ' against the appellant and Inquiry Officer, Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Goreja, Member Inspection Team, Lahore High Court, answered charges Nos.1 and 2 in affirmative, charge No,5 partly in affirmative and charges Nos.3 and 4 in the opinion of the Inquiry Officer stood not proved. After another opportunity of showing cause against the proposed penalty and personal hearing, competent authority ordered his dismissal from service which was challenged before the Tribunal and culminated in the alteration of penalty IA as afore-stated.
4. We have heard learned counsel. Fir the parties at sufficient length and gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record. At the very outset, it may be observed that the questions involved in the appeals do not raise any substantial question of law of public importance within the purview of the expression employed in Article 212 of the Constitution. It may however, be observed ;that on its part the Tribunal did not find any adequate and concrete evidence for holding the appellant guilty of corruption but found him guilty of judicial impropriety, lack of mannerism, indiscipline and being a tactless Judicial Officer. The findings of fact do not appear to suffer from any legal infirmity or misreading of record. Suffice it to observe, the Tribunal was fully authorized and empowered to confirm, modify, vary and revise the quantum of punishment which was rightly exercised by learned Members of the Tribunal.
5. In our considered opinion; no substantial question of law of public importance and no ground for interference with the exercise of jurisdiction is made out, therefore, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.
6. Consequent upon dismissal of the main appeals directed against the removal of the appellant from service, the connected petitions for leave calling in question the adverse remarks against the appellant are rendered infructuous and accordingly disposed of as such.