1. ' MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).-The appellant a Civil Judge was removed from service under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, on the recommendation of the Chief Justice, High Court of Sind by the Chief Secretary Government of Sind and his departmental appeal. Has been rejected by the Martial Law Administrator, Zone 'C' exercising the powers of Chief Minister. This appeal has accordingly been preferred under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 against the order of the Governor/Martial Law Administrator, Zone 'C'.
2. ' The facts in brief are that the appellant was appointed as Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate on 20th May 1971 in Grade-17. While he was posted as III Extra Joint Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Hyderabad, a Rent Application No, 68 of 1969 was filed in his Court by the legal heirs of Seth Abbas Bhai against the University of Sind for ejectment in respect of Students Hostel and arrears of rent amounting to Rs, 83,000. The University of Sind had contested the matter on the ground that the property was Evacuee Trust Property which could not be legally transferred to late Seth Abbas Bhai.
3. That the rent according to the P.T. 1 was payable at the rate of. Rs, 162 per month. The appellant by an order dated 22nd December 1973 fixed the tentative rent at the rate of Rs', 1,000 per month and directed the Sind University to deposit the arrears at this rate for 93 months and 20 days i,e, Rs, 93,613 within one month. The appellant also held that there was relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties. The Sind University preferred an appeal against the said order in the Court of District Judge, Hyderabad and applied for stay order in respect of the deposit of rent on 19th January 1974. This appeal was subsequently transferred to the 2nd Additional District Judge, Hyderabad who issued notice on the application and meanwhile directed that the respondents should not be allowed to withdraw the arrears deposited by the appellant. This order was passed on 12th February 1974. The Record and Proceedings of the case was requisitioned. The R. & P. Did not contain any application filed for withdrawal of the amount of arrears of rent deposited nor any order was recorded by the appellant on the order-sheet allowing the amount to be withdrawn but strangely enough the amount of Rs, 94,613 were paid to the applicant's heirs of Abbas Bhai, by the Civil Judge on 22nd January 1974. This was done on an application for withdrawal dated 22nd January 1974. First an order was written -Notice to other but was scored off and the order was recorded "Applicant is allowed to withdraw the amount signed "Judge". "22-1-1974."
4. ' The appeal was heard by Syed Iqbal Hassan, II-Additional District Judge, Hyderabad who found that the appellant Rent Controller had acted in a very suspicious manner. He remarked that it was within the knowledge of the Civil Judge that an appeal had been preferred against the order of deposit of tentative rent but the huge amount of Rs, 94,613 was allowed to be withdrawn in hot haste without even notice to the other side. That even after the Civil Judge came to know that R & P had been called by the Appellate Court, be dismissed the rent application for default of appearance by the applicants, knowing that an appeal against the interlocutory impugned order was pending in the appellate Court. The Appellate Judge passed strictures against the Civil Judge, condemning the unwarranted haste shown in withdrawal of the rent deposited in compliance with the impugned order and dismissing the rent application thereafter for default and thereby providing uncalled for assistance to the applicants, for reasons best known to the Civil Judge, in abusing of the process of law to defeat the ends of justice and to deprive the appellant Sind University from seeking redress in the matter. The learned appellate Judge remarked that the conduct of this case by the Civil Judge was without a precedent and it left bad taste in the month.
5. ' The matter came to the notice of the High Court and a show-cause notice was issued to the Civil Judge under rule 5(3) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 but he then Chief Justice Mr. Justice Abdul Kadir Shaikh, as the Authorized Officer. The Civil Judge was charged for lapses and abuse of official position amounting to inefficiency, misconduct and corruption proposing major penalty under rule 4(b) of the Rules. The details of the case were also mentioned in the said notice.
6. ' The appellant submitted his explanation to the show-cause notice which was found to be unsatisfactory and the case was forwarded to the Chief Secretary by the Acting Chief Jusnce Mr. Justice Agha Ali Hder, recommending that major penalty of removal from service be imposed by the Authority. This was followed by a notification dated 20th June 1978 by the Government of Sind Services and General Administration Department issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Sind removing the appellant from service with immediate effect.
7. ' The appellant preferred a departmental appeal to the Martial Law Administrator, Zone *C."' which was rejected since no appeal lay to the Martial Law Administrator. Against this order service appeal was preferred before this Tribunal and the case was remanded with the observation that the appeal could be entertained and disposed of by the Martial Law Administrator in exercise of the powers of the Chief Minister. Thereafter by an order dated 2nd November 1980 the order of the Martial Law Administrator-Zone 'C' was conveyed to the appellant that after careful consideration the appeal had been rejected. The service appeal was thereafter preferred before this Tribunal for a second time.
8. ' It has first been argued by Mr. Niamatullah Qureshi on behalf of the appellant that this was a case of judicial error, allowing withdrawal of arrears of rent, deposited in compliance of Rent Controller's orders, under section 13, Rent Restriction Act, without notice to the other side. That one wrong order does not make out a case of misconduct, and motive could be attributed only if such acts, in flagrant violation of the law had been repeated, showing a continuous course of conduct The charge in this case is, however, not of general reputation for corruption but of conduct in a particular case giving rise to an adverse inference, of the order being dishonest, In a highly contested case in which the relationship of the landlord and tenant was disputed and the quantum of the rent was also shown to be Rs, 162 per month only, the Civil Judge had passed the order for deposit of arrears at the rate of Rs 1,000 per month- and directed deposit of Rs, 1 lac approximately by the Sind University within 30 days. This huge amount was paid to the applicants by an ex parte order on an application purporting to have been made on 22nd January 1974, in the absence of Advocate for the Sind University. The withdrawal order was passed on the very same day after obtaining Nazir's report and even a notice was not issued to the Sind University. The reasons for contravention of the rules for issue of the notice to the other side on interlocutory application, were not mentioned. The R & P was sent to the Appellate Court without this application and the order passed was nowhere to be seen on the order-sheet. The Advocate for the University was under the impression that the amount was still lying in the Court and he had obtained the order of the 'Appellate Court against the payment of the amount. The remarks of the Appellate Court regarding the conduct of this case and the adverse inference regarding the motive thus appeared justified. The conduct of a Judge should above suspicion and in the face of such structures by the Appellate Court, the presumption of corruption became too obvious to escape notice of the High Court. There was thus no need of waiting for similar instances a justification for adverse inference against the Civil Judge. The High Court has the confidential record of each Judge and the annual confidential reports must have been verified before issue of the show cause notice. If the appellant considered his previous record to be good nothing prevented him from summoning his personal file for perusal of the Tribunal.
9. ' It has then been argued, that the show-cause notice does not mention specific penalty but the penalty proposed is one of the major penalties mentioned in rule 4(b) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The observations of the Supreme Court, in the case of Syed Nasir Hussain Zaidi 1981 SCM R 402 on this point, are as under :- "It is true that the specific, penalty sought to be imposed was not indicated in the notice calling for the explanation or in the charge-sheet. The rule providing the penalties was referred to. The object was at that stage to elicit a reply to the charges with a view to arrive at their correctness or otherwise. The specific penalty could be determined only when the proved charges were known. In the very process of determining the correctness of the charges, the specific penalty could not be decided upon even provisionally for it would have been premature. The attention of the appellant was drawn to the rule prescribing the various penalties. He had full notice of it. The penalty imposed was one of these which could be imposed. We do not find that the appellant was thereby in any manner prejudiced."
10. For such serious allegations a penalty of removal from service would alone be appropriate and the appellant must have been aware of it. No prejudice has therefore been caused by not mentioning the specific penalty.
11. ' Lastly it has been argued that no personal hearing was given to the appellant. However there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant had ever asked for any personal hearing. On the other band he has shown scant regard even for the Chief Justice in his memo of appeal para. 21 which reads as under :- "21. Mr. Justice Abdul Kadir Shaikh the Chief Justice who had issued the show-cause notice was fully aware of the matter, but did not choose to take action; but Mr. Justice Agha Ali Hyder, the Acting Chief Justice showed anxiety in taking action, for the reasons best known to him,"
12. ' No further comments would appear to be necessary.
13. ' There is thus hardly any substance in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.