ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J./MEMBER.--- By virtue of this consolidated judgment we intend to decide Service Appeals Nos.19 of 2005 and 11 of 2007 both filed by the appellant Mian Qamar ul Islam.
Service Appeal No.19 of 2005
2. Appellant is aggrieved of adverse remarks in his ACR for the period of 1-1-2004 to 4-11-2004 conveyed to him vide letter dated 16-2-2005. In the said ACR the learned Reporting Officer assessed the appellant as "below average" in Parts III, V, VI and VII with regard to his personal qualities, etc. Extracts of Parts III, V, VI and VII containing adverse remarks read below:--- "PART III PERSONAL QUALITIES
2. Integrity
(a) General Below Average
(b) Intellectual Below Average
4. Acceptance of Responsibility 12 Relation with
(a) Superiors
(b) Colleagues
(c) Subordinates 13. Behaviour with public PART V
(b) Counseling
(a) Usefulness for further Retention in service PART VI Below Average Below Average Below Average Below Average Below Average On two occasions the officer was directed to pay more attention to work and he was also informed that his reputation was at stake.
Not useful Overall Grading Meets bare minimum standards (below average) Fitness for promotion Not yet fit for promotion Integrity Reported to be corrupt PART VII
(a) REMARKS OF THE COUNTERSIGNING OFFICER Office received two complaints against him one regarding favourtism and misuse of powers, the second one regarding receiving bribe of Rs. One lac and forty-thousand. Remarks approve."
The appellant filed a representation before the respondent for expunction of adverse remarks which was rejected vide order dated 26-7-2005. Being aggrieved appellant filed this appeal.
Service Appeal No.11 of 2007
3. This appeal under section 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991 is directed against the order dated 21-12-2006 passed by the respondent whereby the appellant has been removed from service.
4. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate on 18-2-2000. During his posting as such at Sargodha in the year 2005 one Javed Sikandar resident of Grain Market Sargodha made a written complaint with the MIT Lahore High Court Lahore bearing the allegations that appellant asked him to get renovate his official accommodation whereupon complainant made expenses amounting to Rs.1,40,000; that in the meanwhile the said complainant also lodged a civil suit titled 'Javed Sikandar v. Muhammad Siddique' in the Court of the appellant whereupon appellant further demanded Rs.2,00,000 as illegal gratification from the complainant for decision of the said civil suit in his favour; that the complainant refused to pay the illegal gratification whereupon appellant dismissed the suit. While entertaining the complaint the respondent/Authority vide letter dated 19-11-2004 directed the then learned District and Sessions Judge Sargodha to hold a preliminary inquiry into the allegations against the appellant. The learned District and Sessions Judge Sargodha after conducting the preliminary inquiry reported that allegations levelled against the appellant prima facie appear to be true and proposed that matter requires regular inquiry. Consequently vide letter dated 12-5- 2005 the Authority suspended the appellant and through subsequent letter dated 17-5-2005 Mr. Abdul Waheed Khan District and Sessions Judge Faisalabad was appointed as inquiry Officer to conduct regular inquiry into the matter in terms of Punjab Civil Servants (R&D) Rules, 1999. The appellant was charge sheeted by the Inquiry Officer on 10-9-2005 in the following manner:--- "Charge Sheet I, Abdul Waheed Khan, District and Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, having been appointed as Inquiry Officer by the competent Authority (Lahore High Court, Lahore) under The Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999, hereby serve you, Mian Qamar-ul-Islam, Civil Judge 1st Class, Rojhan, Rajanpur (under suspension) with charges to the following effects:---
(a) that while posted as Civil Judge 1st Class at Sargodha, you obtained illegal gratification amounting to Rs. One lac and forty thousand from Javed Sikandar complainant in the presence of witnesses; Khalid Hussain Chadhar, r/o Ghalla Mandi, Sargodha and Muhammad Mukhtar s/o Muhammad Mumtaz r/o Bajwa Colony, Sargodha knowingly that the civil suit of said Javed Sikandar titled Javed Sikandar v. Muhammad Siddique was pending before your court.
(b) that prior to shifting in official residence situated in Judges Colony, Sargodha, you used to live in Aziz Bhatti Town, Sargodha in a rented house.
(c) that you called the complainant Javed Sikandar and asked him in the presence of said witnesses that he was to shift in Kothi No.1, Judges Colony, near Mela Ground, Sargodha and its renovation required and was further asked to the complainant that on making renovation from his own pocket, his case would be decided in his favour.
(d) that the complainant incurred an amount of Rs. One lac and forty thousand on your demand for renovation of your official residence and also shifted your household articles through his vehicle.
(e) that in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses you further demanded illegal gratification a sum of Rs.Two lac from the complainant for purchasing new car/big vehicle and on refusal of complainant, on the following day, you decided the suit against the complainant.
(D that Khawaja Imtiaz Ahmed, District and Sessions Judge, Sargodha, conducted preliminary inquiry into the allegations levelled against you by the complainant and the allegations found correct. During the course of preliminary inquiry, the Inquiry Officer recorded your statement as well as complainant which depicts that the complainant was known to you when you were residing in Bhatti Town, Sargodha and your household articles were also shifted in the official residence situated in Judges Colony, Sargodha by using own vehicle of complainant and all the renovation and extra work was done in your said official residence by the complainant. Further more, a list of articles amounting to Rs. One lac and forty thousand, copies of telephone bills and copy of estimate of extra work done in your official residence for Rs. Fifty six thousand reveals that you were found indulged in corruption.
(g) that your attitude with public as well as office bearers of District Bar Association, Sargodha was unbecoming, discourteous and indulged in corruption and earned bad reputation amongst the public and lawyers and in this way you had a persistent reputation of being corrupt.
(h) that you used to sit in the court for a short period and spend most of time in retiring room.
2. By reasons of the above, you appears to be inefficient, guilty of misconduct and being corrupt within the purview of Rule 3(a) (b) and (c) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules 1999, which may entail one of the major penalties, including dismissal from service.
3. You are hereby required to put in written defence within a period of fourteen days from the receipt of this charge sheet failing which it shall be presumed that you have no defence to offer."
The appellant through his written defence denied the allegations levelled against him in the charge sheet. Consequently the departmental representative produced Javed Sikandar (PW-1), Khalid Hussain (PW-2), Muhammad Mukhtar (PW-3), Faqir Muhammad (PW-4), Manzoor Ahmad (PW-5), Khawaja Imtiaz Ahmed (PW-6) and also tendered documentary evidence. On the other hand appellant himself appeared as DW-1 and examined Ghulam Qadar Shehzad (DW-2), Muhammad Bashir (DW-3), Muhammad Asif (DW-4), Pervez Raheem (DW-5) and also produced documentary evidence. After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report dated 11-3-2006 with the findings that charges (a) to (f) were fully established by prosecution/respondent and stand proved against the appellant whereas charges
(g) and (h) were not established. In view of the said findings the Inquiry Officer recommended that the penalty of dismissal from service be imposed against him in terms of Chapter II Rule 4(b)(v) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1999. Consequently he was removed from the service with immediate effect vide impugned Notification No.271/RFIC/CJJ. Dated 21-12-2006, hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it is a case of no evidence; that complainant has miserably failed to bring any convincing evidence to prove his mischievous allegations against the appellant; that the complainant (PW-1) being a cunning and crafty person and aggrieved of rejection of his plaint in the civil suit has spitted his wrath in the form of false and frivolous allegations against the appellant; that the learned Inquiry Officer while recording, the impugned findings has altogether ignored the cross-examination upon the complainant (PW-1) wherein the falsity of the complainant is sufficiently established; that material contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 render their statements unreliable; that both the said witnesses are servants of the complainant therefore their statements lack any worth; that learned Inquiry Officer instead of considering the truthful and trustworthy ocular and documentary evidence produced by him has recorded the impugned findings merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures against law and facts and violative to the principles of natural justice which are liable to be set aside; that the impugned order/notification regarding appellant's removal from the service based on erroneous findings of the Inquiry Officer is untenable.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent contends that the impugned order of appellant's removal from service is legal, based on strong evidence and material available on the record and has been passed after holding a full fledged regular inquiry and appellant was provided full opportunity to defend himself; that the appellant himself admitted that he had developed relations with the complainant and got renovated his official residence from him; that the work and conduct of Judicial Officer is supervised by the High Court in terms of Article 203 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; that appellant's defence plea is not substantiated through any speck of material therefore he has no case to question the credibility of impugned order of his removal from service; that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity therefore it does not call for any interference by this Tribunal; that captioned appeal lacks merits and deserves dismissal.
7. We have given patient hearing to the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the record thoroughly with their able assistance.
8. Javed Sikdander complainant (PW-1) in his statement before the Inquiry Officer categorically reiterated his allegations against the appellant as set forth by him in the complaint (Exh.PA). He also produced details of the expenses (Mark-A/1) amounting to Rs.1,40,000 allegedly incurred by him for renovation of appellant's official accommodation on installation of an iron gate, water pump, water tank, electricity/sanitary fittings, earth filling and plantation of the grass and plants in the lawn besides transportation of appellant's household articles from his rented house to the official accommodation i.e. Kothi No.1, Judges, Colony, Sargodha. Despite lengthy trenchant cross- examination upon the complainant (PW-1) nothing material could be elicited in favour of the appellant. Complainant also examined his shop-clerk namely Khalid Hussain as PW-2. Relevant extract from his statement reads below:--- "I am working as Munshi in the shop of complainant Javed Sikandar for the last about 15-16 years.
Cordial relations between the accused/officer and Javed Sikandar complainant developed. I along with other 5-6 labourers shifted the household articles of the accused/officer from his private residence to his official residence and for this purpose we made arrangement of two vehicles/Daalas. The accused/officer asked the complainant for renovation work in his official residence, whereupon 1 myself on the direction of the complainant got filled earth, got done the sanitary and the electricity work and also the construction. The complainant also got installed the gate of official residence of the accused/officer. For the said work, I also used to supervise the same at the said residence as representative of the complainant."
Above reproduced part of the testimony of PW-2 was not particularly cross-examined by the appellant therefore safe inference can be drawn that the same stands admitted by the appellant.
Learned Inquiry Officer and learned Sessions Judge both appeared and cross-examined by the appellant but no material elicited in favour of the appellant. Complainant with the help of documentary and ocular evidence has sufficiently established that the appellant got renovated his official accommodation at the expense of the complainant.
9. On the other hand the appellant while appearing as DW-1 has categorically stated that complainant used to visit his house frequently. While facing the cross-examination appellant admitted that he used to make calls from his personal telephone to the 'complainant on his mobile phone. It is admitted that the appellant remained in contact with the complainant on telephone even after institution of the civil suit by the complainant in his Court. He also admitted that complainant had been visiting him frequently after his shifting in the official accommodation.
Although appellant produced one Asif Javed (DW-4) resident of Faisalabad who deposed that brother of the appellant had purchased a water pump and a tank to be installed in the official residence of the appellant at Sargodha but prima facie it does not appeal to the sense for the reason that both the said items are of common nature and were easily available at Sargodha.
Therefore their alleged purchase from Faisalabad appears to be an afterthought attempt to create a defence. Appellant has not been able to rebut the complainant's evidence through any reliable and convincing evidence.
10. Besides, it is also established on the record that appellant got executed some extra work worth Rs.56000 in his official accommodation from the official contractor namely Perves Raheem (DW-5) who did not make any written demand from the Building Department for the said extra work. It also establishes misuse of official authority on the part of the appellant.
11. We have carefully gone through the inquiry report. In our considered opinion learned Inquiry Officer has recorded his findings on charges (a) to (f) against the appellant in accordance with law after thorough scrutiny and appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties. The impugned findings of the learned Inquiry Officer do not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of evidence, material irregularity or legal infirmity.
12. Needless to say that Judgeship is not merely a profession rather it is a way of life. Appellant's conduct i.e. Having frank and frequent relations with litigant public was unbecoming of a judicial officer and highly deplorable. Judicial Officers are expected to guard their reputation jealously. A capricious, corrupt and greedy Judicial Officer is not acceptable in the judiciary and to the public- at-large.
13. Besides it is pertinent to notice that during appellant's posting at Faisalabad the learned Reporting Officer assessed him as 'a below average and a corrupt officer' in his ACR for the period from 1-1-2004 to 4-11-2004. In the column of counseling it was categorically mentioned that on two occasions he was directed to pay more attention to work and was also informed that his reputation was at stake. Learned Reporting Officer also assessed him as 'not useful for further retention in service' . All the above said remarks were endorsed by the learned Countersigning Officer. Even thereafter the appellant did not improve himself and failed to guard his integrity. It reveals that the appellant had a general and persistent reputation of being a corrupt judicial officer even before lodging of the complaint by the complainant. At this juncture it may be expedient to quote that Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Shabbir Hussain v.
Registrar Lahore High Court (PLD 2004 SC 191) has candidly held as under:- "Judicial Officers are expected to guard their reputation jealously and Reporting Officers/Countersigning Officers are obliged to assess their conduct after careful consideration and without being led away by any prejudice or bias."
14. It is important to note that appellant has not raised any plea of bias or malice qua the Authority.
The work and conduct of judicial officers is supervised by the High Court in terms of Article 203 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and the evaluation made by the Authority is based on credible material, information and personal observation, free of any bias. In this case the appellant was having general and persistent reputation of being a corrupt judicial officer as assessed in his ACR for the period from 1-1-2004 to 4-11-2004 by learned Reporting and Countersigning Officers. The appellant miserably failed to safeguard or improve his deteriorating reputation resultantly the complaint with regard to getting bribe was received against him and after holding a regular inquiry into the allegations he was found guilty and removed from service. It therefore can safely be concluded that the Authority before passing the impugned order acted in accordance with law following the principle of fair trial and due process for safe administration of justice. Thus it cannot be said that appellant was condemned unheard or that he was deprived of his right to explain his position. In the attending circumstances we have no hesitation in formulating the opinion that charge of corruption stands sufficiently proved against the appellant and the case in hand having been fairly and equitably dealt with by the Authority in accordance with law does not warrant any interference by this Tribunal.
15. For the reasons given both the captioned appeals having no merits are dismissed.