' MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, MEMBER--- By way of this appeal, filed under Section 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunals Act, 1991, Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) has called in question, letter of the Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 10.6.2013, whereby the appellant has been informed that his representation for proforma promotion as District and Sessions Judge, has been declined.
2. The facts are that the appellant was appointed as Civil Judge on 21.12.1983; he was promoted as Senior Civil Judge on 23.11.1999 and as Additional District and Sessions Judge, on 4.9.2000; the Additional District and Sessions Judges, junior to him were promoted as District and Sessions Judges, through Notification No. 234/RHC/AD&SJJ, dated 10.7.2009, but he was deferred and later on promoted to the said post through Notification No. 108/RHC/D&SJJ, dated 11.05.2011; he made a representation, for his promotion from 10.7.2009, when Mr. Abdul Hameed-I, next junior to him was promoted as District and Sessions Judge, but declined, through the impugned letter. Consequently, the appeal in hand.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that during whole of the service career, the record of the appellant remained unblemished, except an occasion that during preliminary proceedings in Criminal Appeals Nos.546/2007 and 547/2007, a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court had made certain remarks, whereupon he was asked to remain careful in future and his work and conduct was kept under observation for a period of one year, during which quarterly reports were made by the concerned District and Sessions Judge, and his work and conduct was declared as 'excellent'; later on, the above mentioned appeals were decided, through judgment dated 4.6.2015, whereby the matter was remanded to the learned Trial Court, for rewriting of the judgment; consequently, the case has been decided afresh, whereby all the accused have been acquitted of the charge, hence depriving the appellant from his due right would be highly unjustified.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has vehemently opposed the appeal.
5. Arguments of both the parties have been heard and record has also been perused.
6. It is a fact that during whole of judicial service, the appellant has not earned any adverse entry.
When he was posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shakargarh, District Narowal, decided a criminal case FIR No. 99, dated 4.6.2006, registered under Sections 302/324/452/148/149, P.P.C., at Police Station Kot Naina, District Narowal, through judgment dated 29.3.2007, whereby Jalal Din, Mushtaq Ahmad, Ghulam Sarwar were convicted and sentenced, whereas Iftikhar Ahmad, Shahnaz Bibi, Nazir Ahmad, Ghulam Hussain, Muhammad Ramzan, Siraj Din, Muhammad Ashraf @ Papoo, Allah Rakhi and Mehmood were acquitted of the charge; against the above said conviction and acquittal, the Criminal Appeals Nos.545, 546, 616 and 824 of 2007 and Criminal Revision No.263/2007 were preferred before the Lahore High Court; during preliminary hearing of Appeals Nos.545 and 546 of 2007, on 24.9.2007, a learned Division bench of the said Court had made the following observations:- "Admittedly, it is a case in which Munir was murdered. We fail to understand that what reasons and under what circumstances the trial court has acquitted the respondents under Section 302(b), P.P.C. And the judgment impugned in this regard is silent. We cannot remain oblivious of the fact that it is a murder case and the judgment impugned is not foolish only but speaks of some extraneous consideration. We therefore recommend that the Presiding Officer be suspended, made an OSD and then a regular inquiry should be held. "
7. The Registrar of Lahore High Court, through letter dated 23.11.2007, while reproducing the above mentioned observations, had directed the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sialkot (as by that time the appellant was posted there), to warn the appellant to remain careful in future, keep him under observation for a period of one year and make quarterly special reports about his work and conduct. In compliance of the above said direction, the appellant was kept under observation for a period of one year, during which special reports were made by the concerned District and Sessions Judge on 4.4.2008, 12.7.2008, 28.8.2008 and 31.1.2009, whereby his work, conduct and integrity was declared as excellent. The above mentioned appeals were later on decided, through the judgment dated 4.6.2015, and the case was remanded to the learned Trial Court for re-writing of the judgment. The matter was again taken up by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shakargarh and decided through judgment dated 3.9.2015, whereby all the accused (whether they were convicted or acquitted by the appellant through the above mentioned judgment) were acquitted of the charge. In this way, when the ground and reason, on the basis of which, on due date, the appellant was deprived of his promotion as District and Sessions Judge, had subsequently, met the above mentioned fate, withholding his due right would not meet the ends of justice.
8. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is accepted, and the appellant is held entitled to proforma promotion with effect from 10.7.2009, the date when Mr. Abdul Hameed-I, next junior to him was promoted as District and Sessions Judge.