' JUSTICE ABDUL AZIZ KUNDI (CHAIRMAN).--- This judgment shall also dispose of Service Appeal No,10 of 1998 by the same appellant directed against rejection of his representation in respect of adverse entries made in his Annual Confidential Report for the year, 1997.
2. Facts relevant for Service Appeal No,6 of 1999 are that while posted as Civil Judge, Booni, Chitral appellant was served by Registrar, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar with notice dated 29-6-1998 and titled "complaint regarding corrupt practices" informing him that while posted as Civil Judge, Dargai he was found involved in corrupt practices by receiving a sum of Rs,5,000 as bribe from one Sultan-e-Room Bacha, a client of Mr. Bashir Ullah Khan, Advocate in a criminal case and thus directed to explain within fourteen days as to why he should not be proceeded against under the N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The reply dated 15-7-1998 submitted by appellant was not found satisfactory and it was accordingly decided to hold inquiry into the matter under N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973.
3. Accordingly his Lordship Mr. Justice Tariq Parvez Khan, a Judge of the High Court was appointed as Authorized Officer and inquiry initiated against him. Mr. Muhammad Sher Shah, the then Additional District Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi, Saidu Sharif, Swat having been appointed as Inquiry Officer conducted inquiry against the appellant and ultimately submitted his report.
4. The Authorized Officer proceeded to supply copy of the Inquiry Report to the appellant and sought his reply within seven days.
5. Thereafter the Authorized Officer proceeded to recommend the following penalty to the Authority in his recommendations dated 20-1-1999.
"(32) The upshot of the above discussion is that I am constrained to hold and I am firm in my belief that prosecution evidence and the record has led me to an irresistible conclusion that the charges against the accused-officer stand proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the wake of above, I in the capacity of Authorized Officer would recommend that the accused-officer be awarded major penalty.
' Keeping in view the total tenure of service, the officer being first offender, I would recommend that he deserves punishment under the N.-W.F.P. Government Servant (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Rule 4(1)(b)(i) i.e, reduction to a lower stage in a time scale.
' Dated 20-1-1999 (Sd.)
(Justice Tariq Parvez Khan), Authorized Officer, 20-1-1999 " .
6. On receipt of the record along with aforestated report, the Authority, however, did not agree with the proposed penalty deeming the same not to be commensurate with the gravity of the charge and accordingly decided to impose major penalty of removal from service within contemplation of Rule 4(1)(b)(ii) of the North West Frontier Province, Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1973.
7. Consequently appellant was served with show-cause notice dated 19-6-1999 to show cause within fifteen days from the receipt of notice as to why major penalty of removal from service should not be imposed on him.
8. In his reply dated 5-7-1999 to show-cause notice appellant requested for a chance of personal hearing, which was provided to him. Then the Authority' proceeded to pass orders for removal of the appellant from service on 13-7-1999, concluding part of which is reproduced herein.
"Since the charge of corruption and misconduct stand proved against the accused-officer beyond reasonable doubt, I order the removal from service of Mr. Naveed Iqbal Khattak, Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi, Booni (Chitral) under Rule 4(1)(b)(ii) of the N.-W.F.P., Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 with immediate effect.
' Dated: 13-7-1999. (Sd.)
(Qazi Muhammad Farooq), Chief Justice/Authority"
9. This order was conveyed to the appellant by the Registrar of the High Court vide Endst.No,5875- 82/Admn.Brh: dated 13-7-1999, hence this appeal after having found no response of his departmental appeal/ review dated 9-8-1999.
10. Arguments heard. Record perused.
11. His learned counsel argued that charge against the appellant was not proved through cogent and unimpeachable evidence and appellant was punished for fault of others; that the report of inquiry officer is biased and even then the Authorized Officer recommended punishment of reduction to a lower stage in a time scale but the Authority enhanced the punishment to one of removal from service, which is not only illegal but also harsh.
12. As against that learned counsel representing the respondents supported the impugned punishment awarded by Authority and argued that appellant, a judicial officer was found guilty of misconduct and thus did not deserve to remain in service as a Judicial Officer and rightly removed from service as a result of a fair and impartial inquiry, where he was given full opportunity to defend himself.
13. We summoned the record of inquiry conducted against the appellant and minutely checked the same.
14. During inquiry against one Muhammad Parvez, Reader in the Court of Civil Judge, Dargai it was found that appellant during his posting as Civil Judge, Dargai was involved in corrupt practices.
Accordingly the matter was brought into the notice of High Court by District and Sessions Judge, Malakand at Batkhela. His explanation was called for but the same was not found satisfactory and it was decided to proceed against him in accordance with law.
15. In the inquiry eighteen P. Ws were examined including P.W.4 Sultan-e-Room Bacha from whom Rs,5,000 was received as fine without any receipt, though demanded. This witness was corroborated by direct evidence of P.W.16 Sher Ahmad D.F.C., Constable Malakand Levies, Police Station Sakhakot, who had produced the accused Sultan-e-Room Bacha in handcuffs. Other witnesses examined as P. Ws. Included certain members of the Bar. Record of various cases was also brought on the inquiry file to reach to a correct conclusion.
16. Appellant throughout remained associated and then recorded his detailed statement on 27-10- 1998 and also produced eleven witnesses in his defence including some members of the Bar.
17. Record shows that not only that the inquiry was conducted in a fair and transparent manner but also the report was prepared after attending to all aspects of the matter on proper appraisal of evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant could point out no misreading, non-reading to justify interference by this Tribunal.
18. The punishment imposed was within competence of the Authority and since the case pertained to a judicial officer, therefore, it was rightly awarded.
19. Appellant, a judicial officer was found guilty of "misconduct" as defined in clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 2 of N.-W.F.P., Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 which reads as under:--- "(e) "Misconduct" means conduct prejudicial to good order or service discipline or contrary to the [N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1987] or unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman and includes any act on the part of the Government Servant to bring or attempt to bring political or other outside influence directly or indirectly to bear on government or any government officer in respect of any matter relating to the appointment, promotion, transfer, punishment, retirement or other conditions of service of a government servant".
20. In the case of Ch. Shabir Hussain and others v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others PLD 2004 SC 191 the honourable apex Court drew distinction between Civil Servants holding posts other than judicial officers and held that though all civil servants are bound to be honest having unblemished integrity, the judicial officers are supposed to excel in this trait of character in view of the sacred and sensitive nature of their duties, thus they are expected to guard their reputation jealously.
21. The law settled in the cases of Qazi Ahmad Jan v. Government of Balochistan through S&GAD and 3 others 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1078, Fazal Ahmad Naseem Gondal v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore 2008 SCMR 1144, and Noor Muhammad Khan v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore 2008 SCMR 1241 dealing with the cases of misconduct in respect of judicial officers can be referred to with advantage.
22. This Tribunal too recently in the case of Taj Muhammad Khan v. Peshawar High Court, Peshawar PLC 2010 (C.S.) 507 while following the law settled by honourable apex court held the same view.
23. In the case of the appellant before us, there is more than sufficient material to form the view that his conduct was unbecoming of a Judicial Officer and fully covered by the "misconduct" as defined in the rules (ibid).
24. We have thus reached the conclusion that this appeal merits dismissal, the same is accordingly dismissed.
25. Service Appeal No,10 of 1998, as stated in the opening part of this judgment, pertain to entries in ACRs/PERs of the appellant for the year 1997 and against which his representations was rejected by Administration Committee of the High Court. The remarks conveyed read as under:--- "(1) Emotional stability Below Average
(2) Relation with subordinate Below Average
(3) Behaviour with public Below Average
(4) Pin-picture.-- He is very emotional. He had beaten and injured one Process Server, who could not perform private duty in his house properly. He feels pleasure in disgracing the litigants and Advocates.
' He does not care for discipline. He is emotional and beats his subordinates. He was also, advised not disgrace the people, but he did not improve. The then worthy Registrar of the High Court was informed by me on phone about the above facts.
' Litigants including Assistant Commissioner/Administrator, M.C. D.I. Khan had moved transfer applications for the transfer of their suits from his court due to his attitude, which were accepted.
Police was also not happy from him due to his behaviour. He criticizes the judgments of the higher courts. He needs further training.
(5) "Not yet fit for promotion."
26. The period under report was immediately followed by the period, during which he performed himself in a manner that ended his career as a judicial officer and his appeal in respect of which has been dismissed through this judgment.
27. The law regarding entries in ACRs/PER's of Judicial Officers has been settled by the august apex Court through its repeated judgments reported as 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1078, titled Qazi Ahmad Jan v.
Government of Balochistan through S&GAD, Quetta and 3 others PLD 2004 SC 191 titled Ch. Shabir Hussain and others v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others and 2007 SCMR 632 titled Mehar Khan M.E.O. v. High Court of Sindh".
28. As his Appeal No,6 of 1999 directed against his removal from service has been dismissed through this judgment, therefore, without going deep into the merits of this appeal, and in the light of settled law of august apex court this appeal is also dismissed.
' Service Appeals No,10 of 1998 and No,6 of 1999 both titled Naveed Iqbal Khattak v. Peshawar High Court, Peshawar are dismissed.