MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J. -- The instant service appeal under Section 5 of the Judicial Service Tribunal Act, 1989 has been preferred by appellant Mrs. Tahira Parveen Baloch, ex-District and Sessions Judge against the notification dated 23rd December, 2014 ("the impugned notification"), issued by the respondent, whereby she was compulsorily retired from service, which reads as under:-- "Consequent upon completion of departmental inquiry against Mrs. Tahira Parveen Baloch, District and Sessions Judge (BPS-21), Killa Saifullah, the Hon'ble Chief Justice/Authority having found her guilty of "misconduct" as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1992 has been pleased to impose upon her major penalty of compulsory retirement from service as envisaged under Rule 4(b)(ii) of the ibid Rules, with immediate effect."
2. The relevant facts, for disposal of the instant appeal, are that the appellant joined District Judiciary as a Civil Judge in the year 1987 and, subsequently, promoted to the rank of Senior Civil Judge in the year 1993, as Additional District and Sessions Judge in the year 1995 and, finally, as District and Sessions Judge in the year 2006. While posted as a District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sibi, she was served with a charge-sheet dated 7th December, 2009, incorporating the following statement of allegations:-- "(1) That while your were posted as District and Sessions Judge, Kharan, you were transferred on 16.5.2009 and, accordingly, you left the charge on 19.5.2009, but on query from Accounts Section of that Division, it transpired that after relinquishing the charge, you on 22.5.2009 withdrew an amount of Rs, 3,80,286/- in cash in different heads without adopting proper procedure and, reportedly, the said amount has not been utilized for any official purpose, which shows that you have embezzled the said amount.
(2) That a complaint was received from Lawyers Action Committee, Dera Allah Yar, wherein it has been mainly alleged that you, in the capacity of District and Sessions Judge, Dera Allah Yar, w.e.f.
28.6.2009 to 24.10.2009, was enjoying extremely bad reputation. The complaint reflects that you obtained bribe in different cases through your Stenographer, namely, Rehmatullah or other sources.
(3) Further more, in the said complaint, it has been stated that you have obtained an amount of Rs, 2,00,0001- from the contractor for the purpose of purchasing Air Conditioners for Court rooms as well as Judges residence at Dera Allah Yar, but the said amount has again not been utilized; meaning thereby you have embezzled the said amount as well
(4) That the allegations, made against you, are of grave in nature, which reflect that your conduct is prejudicial to good order of service discipline and come within the definition of 'misconduct' as defined under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1992."
3. The Inquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of misconduct in his Enquiry Report dated 8th April, 2010 with the following words:- "Thus in considered estimation, she had committed an act of 'misconduct' amounting to corruption as defined under E&D Rules, by embezzling an amount of Rs, 1,13,810/- while posted at Kharan Station and amount of Rs, 2,00,0001 while posted at Dera Allah Yar."
Similarly, the Authorized Officer, while agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, recommended to the Authority major penalty of the appellant with the following conclusion:-- "Overall assessment of the enquiry stands proved against the Officer, who is actively involved in direct corruption and such acts cannot be condoned or a lenient view taken since the same would shake the confidence of the public in the judiciary."
4. The Authority once again provided an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and, finally, the whole process culminated into compulsory retirement of the appellant vide order dated 23rd December, 2014 with the following words:-- "The charges stand proved against the officer and I need not go to in detail. However, a bare perusal of the same would show that the charges are highly serious in nature and by no stretch of imagination it can be expected from a person holding the sensitive post of District and Sessions Judge "to act in such an illegal manner by invoiving herself in such corrupt practices on large scale. All this smacks bad smell and amounts to bring a bad name to the Judiciary. And thus, it unhesitatingly are the acts falling within the definition of 'misconduct' as defined under the Balochistan Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1992. Although the delinquent Officer has put certain excused by making an attempt to absolve herself, but same were not found satisfactory by the learned Authorized Officer and I also concur with his such findings.
As regards the quantum of penalty in my estimated opinion a penalty of compulsory retirement from service would commensurate with the gravity of the acts on the part of delinquent officer."
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned notification is liable to be set aside, being based on the findings of an enquiry, which was also conducted in a very casual, cursory and discriminatory manner, that too, without observing the provisions of the Balochsitan Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1992 ("the E&D Rules"). According to learned counsel, the appellant has been made scapegoat on the basis of minor irregularities, which could easily be ignored in view of the brilliant and unblemished service track record of the appellant. While concluding his arguments, he further submitted that the evidence; furnished during the course of enquiry, is required to be reappraised in view of the fact that the findings of learned Inquiry Officer are not supported by reliable and cogent pieces of evidence.
6. On the contrary, learned Assistant Advocate- General stated that serious allegations, relating to the integrity, that have been found in the case of the appellant upon enquiry, are sufficient to justify the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant. He further contended that the departmental proceedings have nothing to do with the compulsory retirement, as the decision regarding compulsory retirement was taken by the Competent Authority, after careful consideration of overall performance, service record of the appellant and the enquiry report as well as the recommendations.
7. Keeping in view the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we have not only perused the available record, but also minutely gone through the personal file and Annual Confidential Reports
(ACRs) of the appellant in view of the principle that the law requires the Authority to consider the 'entire service record' of a Judicial Officer, while assessing whether he/she can be given compulsory retirement. Admittedly, the enquiry was conducted by a Judge of the High Court and the recommendations for imposing major penalty was also given by a sitting Judge of the High Court and the 'Authority', after fulfilling all the legal formalities, has passed the impugned notification, however, in the interest of justice, we have also gone through the relevant record and found the following facts:--
(i) It appears that, at the time of joining the District Judiciary, the date of birth of the appellant, as per her matriculation certificate, was 20th May, 1957 and in this regard, the request of the appellant for correction of her date of birth from 20th May, 1957 to 20th May, 1959, after joining service, was declined by the then Secretary, Services and General Administration Department, Government of Balochistan vide letter dated 10th September, 1997, however, subsequently, the appellant,without permission of the Competent Authority, has succeeded to insert her date of birth as 20th May, 1959 in her service record.
(ii) That while performing her duties as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sibi, she was suspended by the High Court of Balochistan on account of wilful absence and misconduct vide order dated 13th July, 1998. Though the then Authorized Officer, in view of the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer, recommended her removal from service, however, the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, while taking a lenient view, ordered withholding of annual increments for a period of three years vide order dated 2nd December, 1998.
(iii) That in the year 2005, the appellant was superseded by her juniors: viz. M/s. Zaheer-ud-Din Kakar, Muhammad Iqbal Shahwani (late), Nazeer Ahmed Langov and Rozi Khan Barrech, who were promoted as District and Sessions Judges (BPS-20) vide Notification No, 2243/120-Estt/Admn, dated 23rd November, 2005.
(iv)The appellant was promoted as District and Sessions Judge on officiating basis vide notification dated 14th March, 2006, but, subsequently, on account of poor performance, she was reverted to her earlier position i,e, Additional District and Sessions Judge and her departmental representation was also rejected by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 27th November, 2006. The said notification reads as under:-- "The Hon'ble Chief Justice High Court of Balochistan, has been pleased to withdraw the Notification No, 760- 61/120-Estt: Admn, dated 14.3.2006 to the extent of appointment of Mrs. Tahira Parveen Baloch and Mr. Abdul Rasheed Umrani, as District and Sessions Judge (B-20) on officiating basis and accordingly they stand reverted to their original posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge (B-19) with immediate effect."
(v) That, while declaring the appellant an officer of average performance, the following remarks were given by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice in her ACR of the year 2010:-- "That though her judicial work was satisfactory. She faced certain complaints and doubts were raised about her integrity."
Similarly, in her ACR of the year 2011, the then Hon'ble Chief Justice in the column of 'Pen Picture' observed as under:-- "She must desist from approaching people and her superiors for her personal advancement."
(vi) That the appellant was once again suspended with immediate effect on 22nd December, 2014, when she was performing her duties as District and Sessions Judge, Killa Saifullah vide Notification No, 3893/PF/Admn:, however, due to compulsory retirement of appellant on 23rd December, 2014, the proceedings were stopped and kept in abeyance.
8. The perusal of personal file of the appellant reveals that the same is full of explanations, show- cause notices, warnings and complaints received by the Hon'ble, Chief Justice from time to time from different quarters/corners regarding integrity of the appellant, however, keeping in view length of service of the appellant, while faking lenient views, warnings were issued to her from time to time and last warning was issued to her on 13th May, 2009.
9. It is by now settled that the law requires the authority to consider the entire service record of the employee, while assessing whether he/she can be given compulsory retirement. It is also by now settled that the case of a Judicial Officer is required to be examined, treating him/her to be differently from other civil servants, as they are performing the sacred duty of rendering justice among the general people. Their honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt. It should be reflected in their overall judicial work and reputation. The nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons with doubtful integrity, or who have lost their utility in order to keep the stream of justice unpolluted. Similarly, a Judge cannot be stamped with the label of 'doubtful integrity' in absence of tangible materials, however, sometimes, such materials do not come forth and in such situation, the general impression of the Judge as a corrupt Judge in the mind of general public is alone sufficient for his/her compulsory retirement by the Competent Authority.
10. While considering the case of the appellant on the touchstone of the afore-mentioned principles of law and having gone through her entire service record, we are of the considered view that the appellant remained an average officer throughout her service career and could never improve. She was also enjoying a good reputation in the eyes of general public as well as her superiors. She had been given adverse entries regarding her integrity/reputation as not good in the years 2010 and 2011.
11. It may be added that though the compulsory retirement has been prescribed as major penalty in the Balochistan Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1992, yet it differs from dismissal and removal from service, as it does not involve penal consequences inasmuch as the person compulsorily retired is entitled to pension and other retrial benefits proportionate to the period of service standing to his/her credit. Even otherwise, as per date of birth in the Matriculation certificate, the appellant has already attained the age of superannuation on 19th May, 2017.
12. While reverting to merits of the case, admittedly, the enquiry in the instant case was conducted by a Judge of the High Court and his findings regarding guilt of the appellant was concurred by a Senior Judge of this Court, as such, there is hardly any chance to make the allegation of non- application of mind and male fides. The overall as well as documentary evidence, brought on record, during the course of the enquiry, is sufficient to connect the appellant with the commission of misconduct during her service and the Enquiry Officer as well as the Authorized Officer has appreciated the evidence in its true perspective.
As a sequel to the above reasons and conclusions, the appeal, being without merit, is dismissed.