' MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).-- The appellant, an Additional District Sessions Judge, was removed from service on the recommendation of the Chief Justice, Sind on the ground of his persistent reputation of being corrupt, by an order dated 4th November, 1982, passed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Sind. He has accordingly preferred this service appeal before the Tribunal.
2. The facts in brief are that the President and Secretary District Bar Association, Dadu, forwarded a letter to the Chief Justice alleging that the accused officer, Mr. Mulazim Hussain Kolachi had created havoc in Dadu district. That he was highly corrupt and lees of rupees were being plundered by him. That no matter was being decided by him unless money had been paid. On receipt of this letter the Chief Justice, Sind High Court, deputed Mr. Justice G.M. Kurejo to conduct a preliminary inquiry. He submitted his report to the Chief Justice that Mr. Mulazim Hussain was notoriously corrupt and the orders and judgments passed by him were slipshod and indicated inefficiency and dishonesty. By an order dated 21st December, 1981, the Chief Justice as Authorised Officer with the approval of the Governor, the authority, suspended Mr. Mulazim Hussain Kolachi, who by that time had gone for training at the institute of Sharia, Islamabad. On 30-1-1982 he was served with a charge-sheet, the main charge being that he enjoyed persistent reputation of being corrupt. The appellant sent his explanation denying the allegations. Mr.Justice B.G.N. Kazi was then appointed Inquiry Officer and he conducted a regular departmental inquiry against the appellant in respect of the complaint dated 22-8-1981 regarding corruption, made by Mr.Imam Bux, Advocate, President, District Bar Association, Dadu against him. On completion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer made his report consisting nine typed pages. He found that a number of Advocates who practised in the Courts at Dadu had come forward to accused this judicial officer of being corrupt. He also found that the defence taken by the accused that he had been falsely implicated was flimsy as all the senior members of the bar, who had been examined could not have conspired to harm an innocent officer. The Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that this charge regarding general reputation had been proved.
3. The Chief Justice supplied a copy of the Inquiry Report to the accused officer and gave a personal hearing to him to explain the allegation that had been proved. He then forwarded the case to the authority recommending that major penalty of removal from service be imposed on the accused officer. Accordingly Mr. Mulazim Hussain Kolachi, Additional District and Sessions Judge was removed from service by the order of the authority communicated by the Chief Secretary under his No,S0I1 (S&GAD)--Courts-4-29/78, dated 4th November, 1982.
4. Thus the appellant has been removed after the authority had thoroughly investigated the allegations and received independent reports of Justice G.M. Korejo as a result of the preliminary inquiry and Justice B.G.N. Kazi after regular inquiry. The accused was given the opportunity of submitting his explanation at every step and he was also heard in person by the Chief Justice before forwarding his case to the Governor. The procedure prescribed under the Rules has been followed and principles of natural justice have been duly observed.
5. The appellant has personally argued his own case. He has taken the plea that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity between Kolachis of Dadu district and Mr.Ghulam Nabi Abro, Advocate of Dadu. That the Advocate had started campaign for maligning him. Apprehending trouble he had made three applications to the High Court asking for his transfer from Dadu, but no action was taken on those letters. That the preliminary inquiry had been conducted by Justice Korejo in his absence, while he had been deputed to Islamabad for training in 1981.
6. The appellant has first pointed cut that the charges contained in the charge-sheet are vague and they are not passed on specific instance of acceptance of bribes. That the charge of persistent reputation of being corrupt should have been based on specific instance and their particulars should have been given in the statement of allegations.
7. The appellant has then taken some technical objections that the charge-sheet was signed by the acting Chief Justice and not by the permanent Chief Justice. That under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, only a permanent Chief Justice could act as Authorised Officer. That there is no Rule or explanation in the Efficiency and Discipline Rules that C.J. Includes as acting C.J.
8. He has next argued that the suspension order had expired after three months and had not been renewed by the authority. He, therefore, continued to be in service. That after the second show- cause notice he was given a personal hearing, though, the proper time for such hearing should have been after the report of the Inquiry Officer but before show-cause notice.
9. His next objection is that all D.Ws. Were not examined by the Inquiry Officer. That the Inquiry Officer did not proceed from day to day. That the Inquiry Officer mentioned in the report that he had examined 10 D.Ws., when actually he had examined 18 D.Ws and so on.
10. The learned A.A.-G. Has made a reply to these technical objections by pointing out in the file of the inquiry that appellant had himself signed the statement giving up rest of the defence witnesses. That since the statements were recorded by the Inquiry Officer himself, he could not have made any mistake regarding the number of such witnesses and the figure 10 appearing for 18 in the report was apparently a typographical error which was of no consequence. That non- renewal of the order of suspension could not affect final order passed by the authority. Regarding the charge being vague the A.A.-G. Has pointed out that the evidence during the inquiry was sufficient to point out several instances of corruption in respect of the accused officer and copy of the report was provided to the accused officer before the show-cause noticed issued to him. That it could not, therefore, be said that the appellant had no notice of the case against him. That a Chief Justice includes an acting Chief Justice and such inquiries cannot wait until the Chief Justices are made permanent.
11. We have gone through the statements recorded during the preliminary inquiry by Mr.Justice G.M.
Korejo and then the evidence recorded at the inquiry by Mr.Justice B.G.N. Kazi and we have also peruse he extracts from the personal file of Mr.Mulazim Hussain Kolachi. Mr.Justice G.M. Korejo had examined office-bearers and senior advocates from the Dadu District Bar, who had mostly implicated the appellant as a corrupt officer. During the inquiry the President, District Bar, Dadu Mr.Lmam Bux Guryani, Mr.Shafi Ahmad Akhund, Advocate, Mr.Mazahar-ul-Haque, Advocate, Mr.Ghulam Nabi Soomro, Advocate, Mr. Ali Ahmad, Advocate, Mr. Abdul Latif, Advocate, Mr.Ghulam Nabi Abro, Advocate, Mr. Ghulam Akbar, Advocate and Ex-President Bar Association, Mr.Nasrullah, Advocate, have all given their own impressions that in several cases they were informed by their clients that the appellant had accepted bribe money. The defence witnesses examined by the appellant have given negative type of evidence that it has not come to their knowledge that the accused officer was in the habit of taking money from parties in cases. Some of them have, however, admitted that they had knowledge that members of the bar had complained against the officer.
12. The authorised officer in his summary of recommendation for the Governor has mentioned the full facts comprising of three closely typed pages explaining the whole case with all the evidence for and against the accused officer. The Bar Association of Dadu had even passed a resolution against this Judge openly stating that he was corrupt. The evidence of defence witnesses cited by the accused officer does not defend the case of the officer, who had enjoyed persistent and bad reputation for corruption and was said to be notoriously corrupt. In his personal interview the accused officer had prayed for mercy and the Chief Justice had therefore, recommended his "removal" from service and this recommendation was accepted by the authority.
13. We find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.