MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.--- Through the instant Service Appeal under section 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991 the appellant has assailed Notification No,28/RHC/AD&SJ, dated 31st January, 2001, issued by the Registrar of this Court whereby he has been compulsorily retired from service.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge on 14-1982. He was put under suspension on 11-2-1998 under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khalid Ranjha (as he then was) being the Authorised Officer on 13-3-1998 served him with the following show-cause notice:--- "That you while posted as Additional Sessions Judge, Nankana, previously dealt with the following pre-arrest bail petitions arising out of case F.I.R. No,330/97 under sections 302/109/148/149, P.P.C., Police Station Sadar Nankana:---
(1) Bail Application No,946 of 1997 (Abdul Rehman v. State)
(2) Bail Application No,948 of 1997 (Haji Asghar and 4 others v. State)
(3) Bail Application. No,970 of 1997 (Muhammad Ashfaq v. State)
(4) Bail Application No,999 of 1997 (Muhammad Afzal 3 others v. State)
(2) That on reallocation of Police Station Sadar Nankana under administrative order of the Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, the aforesaid bail applications stood transferred to the court of Mr. Muhammad Mujahid Hussain Sheikh, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nankana.
(3) That on 22-9-1997, while acting as duty Judge of the court of Mr. Muhammad Mujahid Hussain Sheikh, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nankana, you adjourned bail applications (at Sr.Nos.l, 2 and 3 above) to 27-9-1997 but dismissed bail application of Muhammad Afzal and others (at Sr.No,4 above) for non-prosecution.
(4) That being fully aware of the above orders passed by you as duty Judge in the aforesaid bail applications, you entertained on the same day i,e, 22-9-1997, pre-arrest bail application (which was later numbered as 1270/97) on behalf of ten accused including those whose petitions were earlier dismissed for non-prosecution and those whose petitions were adjourned to 27-9-1997, and issued notice to the State for 23-9-1997 (by mentioning 23-7-1997 in the order) with a direction that the petitioners shall not be arrested till 23-9-1997 without requiring them to furnish bail bonds.
(5) That on 23-9-1997 you granted pre-arrest bail to seven out of ten accused whereas bail petition of the remaining three accused was dismissed as withdrawn.
(6) That during the hearing of Criminal Miscellaneous No,5013/CB of 1997 for cancellation of bail which was finally decided by order dared 3-2-1998, the following glaring abnormalities were noticed:---
(i) The accused had earlier filed, separately number of pre-arrest bail applications. Initially they were on your cause list but under an administrative order of learned Sessions Judge, were transferred to the court of Mr. Muhammad Mujahid Hussain Sheikh, the transferee Judge was not available on 22-9-1997 and the bail applications were taken up by you, as Duty Judge. One of the applications was dismissed for non-prosecution, while three of them were adjourned to 27-9-1997 for being put up before the court. In spite of it, on the same day, you entertained fresh application of all the ten accused and, as noted, granted them omnibus bail till 23-9-1997 and confirmed the same in respect of seven of the accused who pressed for the same.
(ii) The fresh bail application (B.A. 1270 dated 22-9-1997) was not numbered till at least 24-9-1997 when the attested copy, attached as Annex "H" was issued to the complainant.
(iii) The interim order dated 22-9-1997 whereby the petitioners were directed not to be arrested till 23-9-1997, did not call upon the accused to furnish bond/bail which was a glaring violation of the law of bail.
(iv) Time allowed to the State to defend itself was even less than 24 hours. This abnormality cannot be justified from the record.
(v) Why the fresh bail petition was entertained when earlier similar petitions of the accused were adjourned to 27-9-1997 for being taken up by the appropriate court?
(7) That when confronted with the aforesaid abnormalities during the course of personal hearing before the learned Single Judge who decided the petition for cancellation of bail, you had no explanation at all.
(8) That the above facts, prima facie, do indicate that you entertained pre-arrest bail petitions of ten accused (bearing No,1270 of 1997) knowingly and for extraneous consideration and bail was granted otherwise than legal motives and. Requirements and your conduct in the case was unbecoming of a judicial officer.
(9) That your acts as aforesaid amount to gross judicial impropriety inefficiency and misconduct falling within the purview of rule 3(a) and (b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1975 and render you liable to be proceeded against under sub-rule (3) of rule 6. As the facts are matter of record I do not think that further inquiry in this case is necessary.
(10) You are, therefore, called upon to show cause in writing within fourteen days of the receipt of this communication as to why imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service be not recommended to the authority. Your explanation should reach this Court within the aforesaid period, failing which, it shall be presumed that you have no defence to offer. Copies of bail petitions and orders are attached."
3. The Authorised Officer while dispensing with holding of regular inquiry in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline), Rules, 1975 called for the appellant to submit his explanation which he did. The Authorised Officer thereafter recommended discharge of show- cause notice. As the Authorised Officer did not appoint any Inquiry Officer, therefore a sub- committee comprising of two Hon'ble Judges of this Court was constituted to examine the report of the Authorised Officer. The Sub-Committee did not agree with the report of the Authorised Officer and recommended that de novo departmental proceedings be initiated against the delinquent officer/the appellant. The Administration Committee of this Court in its meeting held on 22-12-1998 approved the recommendations of the Sub-Committee and appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jilani (as he then was of this Court) as the Authorised Officer who served the appellant with show-cause notice on 15-3-1999. The appellant submitted his reply to the show- cause notice on 2-4-1999. Meanwhile another reference was received qua the second charge based on observations made by a learned Judge of this Court in Civil Revisions Nos.449-C of 1997 and 723-D of 1997. The Authorised Officer in his findings recommended for imposition of major penalty of compulsory retirement from service where after final show-cause notice was issued to the appellant. He was also afforded an opportunity of personal hearing by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday (as he then was). His lordship also recommended appellant's compulsory retirement from service. Finally, the competent Authority issued the impugned notification. Hence, the instant appeal.
4. The appellant argued, that after having been exonerated by the first Authorised Officer de novo inquiry could not be initiated on similar charges; that the charges levelled against him were groundless and not substantiated from any record; that no malice or ill will was proved on the record in entertaining and passing orders in the bail applications mentioned in the charge sheet; that on the basis of the observations made by the Hon'ble Judge in the Civil Revisions without proving malice or ill will on the part of the appellant, he could not be imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement from service; that none of his acts displayed misconduct warranting major penalty; that for imposing major penalty regular inquiry could not be dispensed with; and that the impugned notification is liable to be set aside.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as the matter could be thrashed out on the basis of available record, therefore, there was no need to hold regular inquiry in the matter; that mala fide of the accused-judicial officer was apparent from the face of the record; that he had passed bail orders hastily knowing the fact very well that through an earlier administrative order the said bail applications had been transferred from his Court; that the manner in which he decided civil revisions showed that he had passed judgment in the said cases totally against law and possibility of extraneous consideration could not be ruled out; that the conduct of the accused-officer was unbecoming of a judicial officer and deserved removal from service but the competent Authority took lenient view of the matter in view of his length of service as he was on the verge of retirement; and that the instant appeal merits dismissal.
6. We have heard the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record.
7. The appellant was charged with two allegations. Firstly, that his conduct in deciding bail application in case F.I.R. No,330 of 1997, under sections 302/148/149, registered at Police Station, Nankana Sahib was unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. Secondly, he decided civil revisions in total disregard to the statutory provisions of law and dictum laid down by the superior courts of the country. About his conduct in handling the civil revisions this Court while deciding Civil Revision No,723-D of 1997 also passed certain observations. No doubt the first Authorised Officer recommended for discharge of the show-cause notice but agreeing or disagreeing with the recommendations of the Authorised Officer being the prerogative of the competent Authority, there was no bar in the way of or ordering de novo inquiry. We do not find any illegality in this respect.
8. We have probed into the first allegation against the appellant. The record reveals and it is even an admitted fact that the following bail applications arising out of F.I.R. No,330 of 1997, registered under sections 302/109/148/149, P.P.C., at Police Station, Sadar Nankana, though previously dealt with by the appellant as Additional Sessions Judge but later on under administrative order, were transferred to another Additional Sessions Judge, namely, Muhammad Mujahid Hussain Sheikh:---
(1) Bail Application No,946 of 1997 (Abdul Rehman v. State)
(2) Bail Application No,948 of 1997 (Haji Asghar and 4 others v. State)
(3) Bail Application No,970 of 1997 (Muhammad Ashfaq v. State)
(4) Application No,999 of 1997 (Muhammad Afzal and 3 others v. State)
The appellant while working as Duty Judge of the Court of Mr. Muhammad Mujahid Hussain Sheikh, Additional Sessions Judge on 22-9-1997 adjourned the bail applications mentioned at Sr.Nos.1 to 3 to 27-9-1997 but dismissed the bail application falling at Sr.No,4 for non-prosecution. This act of the appellant was against the principle of propriety. Admittedly, all the four bail applications had arisen out of the same F.I.R. These petitions should have been taken up together but two different orders were passed in respect of the same. The petitioner in the fourth bail petition filed a further petition, which was taken up same day and a short notice less than 24 hours was issued to the State as well as the complainant. It is also on the record that the accused who had been allowed pre-arrest bail by the appellant were declared innocent in the first investigation but the findings of the I.O. Were reversed by the DSP who held the accused persons guilty of the offence. What compelled the appellant to take up the petition already dismissed for non-prosecution same day and issue an extremely short notice, without providing the State and the complainant sufficient time to appear and represent their case properly. The conduct of the appellant besides being perfunctory also is tainted with mala fide and shows some extraneous consideration on his part.
The appellant has failed to justify the urgency in deciding the pre-arrest bail in one day ignoring the fact that the said bail petition along with connected three others had already been entrusted to another Additional Sessions Judge, on administrative grounds. There is also no record produced in defence to show that deciding of bail matters in such expeditious manner had been the routine of the appellant-officer. Such a conduct shown by the appellant is unbecoming of a judicial officer.
The learned Authorised Officer had thus rightly recommended imposition of major penalty of compulsory retirement from service on the appellant, which in the circumstances to us appears to be a somewhat lenient view taken against the appellant.
9. So far as the second charge of passing judgments in civil appeals against the mandatory provision of law and the case-law laid down by the superior courts is concerned, the appellant himself has admitted that in the said judgments he had departed from certain principles of law and that the aggrieved party had the remedy to challenge his judgments before the higher forum.
This can hardly be considered a valid excuse by a judicial officer. When ignorance of law is considered as no excuse in the matter of a layman how it could be taken as a valid ground in the matter of a judicial officer like the present appellant, who was vested with the power to exercise the appellate jurisdiction.
10. While dealing with Civil Revision No,499-C of 1997 the appellant rendered such a judgment, which cannot be said to be a judgment as defined in the C.P.C. We are surprised to note that the said judgment lacks the points in controversy, especially the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in the said civil revision. In the afore stated circumstances, we are not inclined to differ with the findings of the Authorised Officer that the appellant proved himself to be guilty of misconduct in handling judicial matters, involving valuable rights of the parties to the litigation.
11. For what has been discussed above, we see no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.