1. ' MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant Muhammad Saleem who has filed this appeal No, 45 of 1987 started his service career as Civil Judge. His first posting in that capacity was at Mirpur Mathelo where he remained for little over one year, from 2-1-1974 to 26-5-1975. During this period a number of complaints including those of corruption were received against him. He was therefore shifted to Jacobabad. There too he did not stay long as he was transferred to Moro in the end of December, 1975. Both at Jacobabad and Moro, he showed no improvement. Ultimately disciplinary action was initiated against the appellant while he was still working at Moro. He was served with charge-sheet and statement of allegations, dated 12-3-1978 to which the appellant submitted his reply on 5-4-1978. As required by rule 5(2) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
2. Rules, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the said rules, first Mr. Atta Muhammad Kazi, Member Inspection Team and on his transfer, his successor, Mr. Ally Madad Shah (now Mr. Justice (Rtd.) Ally Madad Shah) was appointed as Enquiry Officer. A number of witnesses were examined on both sides in course of the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 12-7-1979, holding the appellant guilty of the charges specified in the report. On taking into consideration the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and the recommendations made by the Authorised Officer, the Authority by his order dated 2nd September, 1979, dismissed the appellant from service. After fulfillment of legal requirement of departmental remedy, the appellant came up in Service Appeal No, 7 of 1980 before this Tribunal, but the same was dismissed as time-barred by order dated 3-4- 1980 passed in limine.
3. ' The said order was challenged in appeal before the Supreme Court whereupon the case was remanded back to the Service Tribunal for decision on merits vide judgment of the Supreme Court dated 3-2-1982. The Service Tribunal, in its turn, accepted the appeal on 17-10-1982, setting aside the impugned order of the appellant's dismissal from service on technical grounds. In pursuance of the decision of the Service Tribunal, the appellant was reinstated in service by notification dated 21-11-1982. However, as it was left open to the departmental authorities in the judgment of the Tribunal to make amends from the stage, where the error had occurred, the appellant soon after his reinstatement was placed under suspension on 29-11-1982. Two days later, on 1-12-1982, show- cause notice accompanied by a copy of enquiry report was served on him, requiring him to appear before the Authorised Officer on 18-12-1982 When the appellant appeared before the Authorised Officer as directed, he was asked to put in his written defence which he submitted on 11- 1-1983. He was also given personal hearing on 15-1-1983. Thereafter the case was kept in cold storage for nearly four years. It was on 4-2-1987 that the Authority passed the impugned order whereby the appellant was removed from service. The said order, according to the appellant, was received by him on 19-3-1987. He preferred review petition from that order on 12-4-1987 but as the said petition remained undecided at the expiry of statutory period of 90 days, the appellant filed the present appeal calling in question his ouster from service.
4. ' We heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length. With their assistance we also went through the massive record of the case.
5. ' The charge-sheet dated 12-3-1978 served on the appellant contains the following charges against him; "(a) That you while posted as Civil Judge and F.C.M. Mirpur Mathelo, were freely mixing with politicians and influential people of the area; that you had also the reputation of being corrupt and you were conducting yourself tactlessly.
(b) Following allegations of corruption, mis-conduct and abuse of your official position were made against you while you were posted as Civil Judge and F.C.M. Mirpur Mathelo:--
(i) Transfer Application No, 23/75 was moved before the District Judge, Sukkur, in which it was alleged that you were interested in the plaintiffs and were prejudiced against the defendants as you and the plaintiffs were the disciples of Pir Bharchundi Sharif.
(ii) In transfer Application No, 1/75 moved before the District Judge, Sukkur, it was alleged that the defendant Muhammad Alam had been dominating you and that you were inclined to favour the defendants. In this application, apart from the affidavit of the applicant, one Advocate of Mirpur Mathelo had also filed his own affidavit in support of the above allegations.
(iii) Transfer Application No, 2/75 was moved before the District Judge, Sukkur, in which it was alleged that you used to talk with the other party in Chamber and that you had been avoiding to record evidence and asking the petitioner to clap and sing songs of Bhitai.
(iv) In transfer Application No, 5/75 moved before the District Judge, Sukkur it was alleged that Mr. Rasul Buz, Advocate had purchased a house in which one Wali Muhammad and Mahmood, Bailiff and Copyist respectively of the Court of the Civil Judge, Mirpur Mathelo were the tenants of the same house. Mr. Rasul Bux, Advocate wanted them to vacate the tenement and Wali Muhammad Bailiff had handed over possession of the said house to him after accepting Rs,200 as consideration. Wali Muhammad Bailiff was transferred to Civil Court, Shikarpur and Mahmood Copyist was discharged from service by the District Judge, on which it was alleged that you thought that the actions of removal from service and the transfer of your subordinates were taken on the complaint of the petitioner Mr. Rasul Bux, Advocate and consequently, you were offended with the petitioner. It was further alleged that Wali Muhammad and others filed it actually on 14-4- 1975 but the same was registered on 12-4-1975 and you, without any notice to the applicant/defendant, issued an injunction restraining the applicant/defendant from interfering with the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs and the hearing of the injunction appliction was fixed on 3-5-1975. It was alleged that you procured a false report from the members of your staff regarding breach of injunction by the applicant and took action under Order 39 rule 2(3), C.P.C.
6. Without any notice to the petitioner. You, straightaway attached the office furniture of the petitioner which was challenged by the petitioner in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No, 35 of 1975.
(v) On 14-4-1975, the District Judge, Sukkur received a telegram from Ahmad and Saleh Muhammad Kalochi alleging that you had been indulging in politics of Mirpur Mathelo and were aiding the disturbance in Mirpur Mathelo High School administration and were creating Sindhi Punjabi tussle.
(vi) Ahmad Shah sent another telegram to the District Judge, Sukkur with the allegation that you were harassing him and had advanced threats of dire consequences to him.
(vii) On 17-4-1975 the District Judge had received a telegram of Mr. Rasul Bux Siyal, Advocate alleging that you were highly interested in Wali Muhammad Bailiff and Mahmood Copyist and that you were not implementing the order regarding their transfer and dismissal (discharge).
(viii) On 19-4-1975, the District Judge also received a copy of a complaint under the signature of Mr. Rasul Bux, Advocate addressed to my lord the Chief Justice. In this complaint the petitioner had alleged that Wali Muhammad and Mahmood have been favorites and that you were not prepared to implement the order passed by the District Judge with regard to their transfer and discharge. Mr. Rasul Bux, Advocate had further alleged that since action against the two officials had been taken at his instance by the District Judge, you had been extremely annoyed with him and that you were not only getting false cases registered against him but also registering civil suits with ante-date and orders. The complainant had also made allegations that you were dishonest, drunkard and womaniser.
7. ' On 7-5-1975, the District and Sessions Judge, Sukkur received a complaint made by one Saheb Khan Shar. In this complaint it was alleged that you had intentionally disgraced him at the instance of one Hindu Doctor of Dharki, who is your friend.
(x) The Civil Surgeon, Sukkur had also complained to the District and Sessions Judge about your behavior and conduct in a direct complaint and complained that you were interested in the complainant's side. The accused subsequently made a transfer application before the District Magistrate, Sukkur, who transferred the case to the Court of Joint Civil Judge and F.C.M. Sukkur.
(xi) The Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur informed the District Judge that in a meeting held by him various people had complained to him about your conduct and behavior and that you had become a controversial figure. The police had also become non-cooperative with you.
(c) That, though as the result of above complaints, you were transferred from Mirpur Mathelo and posted as Civil Judge and F.C.M., Jacobabad, you did not improve your conduct and continued behaving in the same manner. Complaints against you were made by the Members of Jacobabad District Bar Association and public regarding corruption, misconduct, rude behavior towards the members of the Bar, who had complained against you as the result of which some senior members of the Bar stopped appearing in your Court, and your association with local people, who were approaching you frequently in matters before you."
8. ' However, as disclosed in the enquiry report dated 12-7-1979 the Enquiry Officer held the appellant guilty of the charges specified in the concluding para. 48 of his report. It may be advantageous to reproduce the said para as under: "48. It has been held above under charge (A) that the respondent did not enjoy good reputation during the tenure of his posting at Mirpur Mathelo. It has further been held under the same head of charge that the respondent had placed himself under obligation of a local political leader. It has been held under charge (b)(iv) that the respondent was guilty of abusing his authority as a judicial officer by ordering attachment of office furniture of Mr. Rasool Bux Siyal, Advocate. It has also been held under charge (b) (vii and viii) that the respondent had purposely delayed implementation of order by the District Judge, Sukkur of transfer of Wali Muhammad Bailiff. Lastly, it has been held under charge (c) that the respondent had conducted himself, as a judicial officer, tactlessly. All these actions, individully and collectively constitute "Misconduct" as defined under rule 2(4) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The respondent is, accordingly, held guilty of misconduct, and carrying reputation of being corrupt, calling for one of the major penalties provided under Rule 4(5) of the said Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973."
9. It would appear that the impugned order whereby the appellant was removed from service has been grounded on the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly we would confine our discussion to only the charges which the Enquiry Officer has held as proved.
10. ' Broadly speaking the charge-sheet consists of three parts. The part at (a) speaks of the appellant's mixing with politicians and influential people of the area, having reputation of being corrupt and conducting himself tactlessly. As for the allegation of the appellant's mixing with influential people, the Enquiry Officer after appraising the evidence laid before him on that point has come to the following conclusion: "Thus, there is no doubt that the respondent had recommended the application of Muhammad Ishaque to Sardar Noor Muhammad Lund, the MNA for a telephone connection. This is the evidence of not only of his contacts with local influential persons but also that of his putting himself under the obligation of a political leader of the place of his posting in contravention of Rule 16 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1966."
11. ' It would appear that for the above conclusion, the Enquiry Officer has solely relied upon two documents; one, letter (Exh. 3-J) purported to have been written by the appellant on a sheet of his letter pad to Sardar Noor Muhammad Khan Lund then MNA recommending the application of one Muhammad Ishaque a resident of his home town, Tando Adam for telephone connection and, two, the application (Exh. 3-K) purported to be in the name of the said Muhammad Ishaque. The Enquiry Officer on comparing the handwriting used in the above two documents with the undisputed handwriting of the appellant, found that they were identical being in the same hand. As such he came to the above conclusion. We have considered the material on which above finding is based.
12. Admittedly the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer came from the custody of Mr. Rasool Bux Sial, Advocate, as they were produced by him in course of the enquiry. It would appear that his evidence with regard to character of the appellant was rejected by the Enquiry Officer in the following words: "Mr. Rasool Bux is the same person who has personal grievance against the respondent of attachment of his office furniture discussed above under charge (b-iv). He is, therefore, a biased witness and his word alone levelling wild allegations would not be sufficient evidence."
13. ' Despite his above observations the Enquiry Officer did not accept the appellant's explanation that the letter pad of his name used in the aforesaid letter might have been taken away by his peon Haji Arbab Sial who is related to Mr. Rasool Bux, Advocate. However, we feel that this possibility cannot be ruled out altogether, particularly when there existed bitter relations between the appellant and the said Advocate. Moreover, no explanation was forthcoming from the said Advocate how and in what circumstances the aforementioned documents fell into his hands. Of course the Enquiry Officer, in this respect, has expressed the view that because Mr. Rasool Bux has been attending to the affairs of Sardar Noor Muhammad Lund, therefore the communications meant for him could fall into his hands. We regret we are not impressed by this reasoning. There is no indication on record that Mr. Rasool Bux handled the correspondence of Sardar Noor Muhammad Lund. May be he served as his Advocate in his legal matters. In that capacity he was unlikely to come into possession of the two disputed documents. Moreover, bare opinion of the Enquiry Officer that the said documents were in the handwriting of the appellant cannot be accepted as substitute of the proof. Accordingly the above finding of the Enquiry Officer cannot be endorsed without mental reservation. Obviously the benefit of doubt will go to the appellant.
14. ' The next allegation against the appellant is that he did not enjoy good reputation as he was known to be corrupt. For proof of this allegation the Enquiry Officer has based his findings mainly on the evidence of Mr. Ishtiaq Hussain, the then District and Sessions Judge, Sukkur. The relevant portions of his evidence are reproduced as under:-- "I was District and Sessions Judge, Sukkur from the middle of 1974 to April, 1978. The respondent Mr. Muhammad Salim was Civil Judge and F.C.M., Mirpur Mathelo during my days. There were general complaints of corruption against him."
15. "I had called him 2-3 times and told him that there were complaints against him and advised him to refrain from doing such things which were basis of complaints against him. I started receiving telegrams and applications against him "
16. "Some transfer applications were also filed for transfer of cases from the Court of Mr. Muhammad Salim on the ground of certain allegations leveled against him."
17. "The then Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur Mr. Yousuf Jamal, had informed me that the Civil Judge, Mirpur Mathelo, Mr. Muhammad Salim Memon, has become a controversial figure and that he did not enjoy good reputation.
18. ' That then Civil Suregon; Sukkur, Dr. Muhammad Sharif, had made complaint that the Civil Judge, Mirpur Mathelo had issued warrants against his father-in-law and others under the influence of someone in order to harass them. He wanted transfer of the case. I told him that the District Magistrate was the transferring authority during those days."
19. "There had been a complaint of Mr. Rasul Bux Sial, Advocate against Wali Muhammad Bailiff, Mahmood Copyist then serving in the Court of Civil Judge, Mirpur Mathelo. The complaint Exh. 3-A in the personal file of Mr. Muhammad Salim Memon (Exh. 1-E) is same. After making enquiries, I had passed an order on 10-4-1975 that Wali Muhammad Bailiff should be transferred and services of Mahmood Copyist should be terminated "A direct complaint under section 342, P.P.C. Had been filed against Mr. Muhammad Salim. I do not recollect if any criminal case had been filed against the brother of Mr. Muhammad Salim at Mirpur Mathelo.
20. ' There were complaints against Mr. Muhammad Salim that he was dishonest and corrupt but there was no tangible evidence before me "There was no complaint to me from the S.P. But D.S.P. Ghotki had made complaint to me verbally that Mr. Muhammad Salim was not enjoying good reputation ' The above evidence of the District and Sessions Judge is self-explanatory. The cumulative effect that his evidence creates in reasonable mind is that the integrity of the appellant was not above board and on the whole he enjoyed reputation which was far from commendable. Inter alia it is disclosed in the evidence of the District and Sessions Judge that evens Mr. Yousuf Jamal, the then Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur had made complaints of corruption to him about the appellant.
21. However, when the said Deputy Commissioner was called in evidence, he expressed his inability to recollect if he had conveyed such complaints to him. While taking note of the Deputy Commissioner's evidence on this charge, the Enquiry Officer has expressed his findings as under: "However, the evidence of Mr. Muhammad Ishtiaq Hussain that the respondent did not enjoy good reputation is not dependent on only that source of information. The connotation of the expression "Reputation" is what a person is generally known to be. Mr. Muhammad Ishtiaq Hussain being the head of the judicial District Administration was in a better position than anyone else to know about the reputation of the respondent. His evidence is sufficient to prove that the respondent di not enjoy good reputation and he was known to be corrupt."
22. ' We are in general agreement with above observations of the Enquiry Officer. The penalties listed in rule 4 of the said rules can be imposed only on the grounds mentioned in rule 3 thereof. As provided in clause (c)(iii) of rule 3 hereinabove, if in the opinion of the authority a civil servant may reasonably be considered corrupt because he has persistent reputation of being corrupt he would be liable to be visited with a prescribed penalty. However, the charge of having persistent reputation of being corrupt is not capable of being proved by any specific evidence. It can be proved only by general opinion of the public at large or the persons directly or indirectly concerned with the accused official in one way or the other. Therefore, we share the opinion of the Enquiry Officer that the District and Sessions Judge being head of Judicial Administration of the District was in a better position to know about the reputation that the appellant enjoyed in the area of his posting. The District Judge was expected to possess special knowledge in this regard because apart from the appellant being his subordinate, he was in constant touch with the litigants and the members of bar who invariably serve as rich sources of information about over all conduct and behavior of the Judge of the area. In addition to above two traditional sources, the third source of information available to the District and Sessions Judge is the Police and Magistracy because the officers belonging to this category have their dealings not only with the general public but also with the Civil Judges who perform additional duties of Magistrates.
23. ' As disclosed in the evidence of Sessions Judge even the then Deputy Commissioner (District Magistrate), Mr. Yousuf Jamal and D.S.P. Ghotki had informed him that they too had received complaints against the appellant. No doubt when the said Deputy Commissioner was called to give evidence in the enquiry against the appellant, he could not recollect if he had conveyed such information about the appellant to the District and Sessions Judge. But we cannot construe such statement of the Deputy Commissioner as his outright denial of having informed the District and Sessions Judge about receipt of the complaints against the appellant. Maybe he had really forgotten his said communication with the District and Sessions Judge or maybe, he deliberately evaded in his reply just to oblige the appellant. In any case he has not stated in his evidence that the Sessions Judge had spoken total falsehood. Even otherwise we see no reason for the Sessions Judge to have attributed false information regarding the appellant's reputation to his colleague of the District namely the Deputy Commissioner. In our opinion even the Sessions Judge himself had absolutely no motive to involve the appellant in false charge. No such question has been put to him in cross-examination. On the contrary in course of the arguments addressed at the bar it was frankly admitted that Mr. Ishtiaq Hussain, the then District and Sessions Judge, Sul, kur enjoyed the reputation of being honest and above board. It was least expected from such a conscientious officer that he would go to the extent of implicating his own subordinate in the false charge for nothing. As pointed out above the evidence that the Sessions Judge had personal vendetta or against the appellant, for whatever reason was conspicuously missing.
24. ' Even the appellant has not said much about the evidence of the District and Sessions Judge. In para. 11 of his explanation dated 11-1-1983 submitted by the appellant in reply to the enquiry report, all that he has stated is "that the earned Enquiry Officer has erroneously accepted the hearsay evidence of learned .W. Muhammad Ishtiaq Hussain as his evidence has no corroboration at all. It is apparent that this learned P.W. Has made improvements in his statement by contradicting his own report dated 13-5-1975 made in details against me to the Humble Registrar, High Court of Sind, without mentioning therein that I had reputation of being corrupt. Moreover, I had produced remarks on the confidential reports for the year 1974 of my posting at Mirpur Mathelo made by the said learned witness which reads as under:-- "While the confidential report on your work and conduct for the year 1974 enumerates your good qualities."
25. ' The appellant's above arguments are without any force. The rule of evidence based on 'hearsay evidence' is not applicable in the instant case. Moreover as pointed out above the charge of persistent reputation of being corrupt can be proved by evidence of general public opinion or the opinion of those who are directly or indirectly concerned with the accused official. Positive evidence becomes necessary in case of specific charge. Mere omission of the words that "The appellant had reputation of being corrupt" from the detailed report the Sessions Judge had submitted to the High Court, would not render his statement in the enquiry proceedings contradictory nor on that account it would be robbed of its worth and weight. Since the said omission had no effect of altering the fact with regard to the appellant's reputation of being corrupt, it was simply to be ignored as insignificant and immaterial. As regards giving of good confidential report in reply to the question put to him in cross-examination the Sessions Judge stated, "I do not remember if I had assessed the work and conduct of Mr. Muhammad Salim in the confidential report for the year 1974 as good." However, photostat copy of the letter dated 16th March, 1976 addressed to the appellant by the Registrar, High Court has been laid before us. It rather shows that adverse remarks given to the appellant for the year ending 31-12-1974 were conveyed to him. In the said report the appellant was rated as "below average officer" with further allegation that he leaves the station of his posting without permission and that at least one such instance was proved and disapproval was conveyed to him. Despite the above adverse aspect of the report, the appellant has laid emphasis on opening three lines of the Registrar's letter which reads as follows:-- "While the confidential report on your work and conduct for the year ending 31-12-1974 enumerates your good qualities ' Since the original report was not before us it was difficult to say to which "good qualities" of the appellant reference was made in the Registrar's letter. So far his work was concerned he was rated "below average officer" which means poor and his conduct was clear from the adverse remarks that he was in the habit of leaving the station of his posting without permission. Thus the words "good qualities" are clearly inconsistent with the adverse report given to the appellant. Maybe the said words have crept in the Registrar's letter through typographical error. In any case no undue importance can be given to such words when adverse report on work and conduct of the appellant was conveyed to him. The appellant's contention that no reliance can be placed on uncorroborated evidence of the District and Sessions Judge is untenable. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which builds or demolishes the case. Would the absence of corroboration render the evidence of the Sessions Judge unworthy of credit? As has been discussed above, his evidence was absolutely free from bias. As such it cannot be brushe aside only because no other witness was examined to say what the Sessions Judge had stated in his evidence. His evidence apart from being unbiased was fairl comprehensive. It says, that there were general complaints of corruption against the appellant, that he advised the appellant to refrain from doing such things which form the basis of complaints, that several applications for transfer of cases from his Court were made, that Mr. Yousuf Jamal the then Deputy Commissioner told him that the appellant had become controversial and that he did not enjoy good reputation, that the Civil Surgeon complained to him that the appellant had issued warrants against his father-in-law and therefore he wanted transfer of the case from the appellant's Court, that direct complaint was filed against the appellant under section 342, P.P.C., that several telegrams and applications were received against the appellant and that D.S.P. Of Ghotki, neighboring place of the appellant's place of posting had also told him that the appellant was not enjoying good reputation. Accordingly we place full reliance on the evidence of the District and Sessions Judge and hold that at Mirpur Mathelo the appellant had persistent reputation of being corrupt.
26. ' As pointed out above, one of the allegations contained in part (a) of the charge-sheet is that the appellant conducted himself tactlessly. In this connection the admitted position on record is that during his tenure at Mirpur Mathelo, a number of telegrams and applications were received against him, several applications were filed for transfer of cases from his Court, at least one local lawyer namely Mr. Rasul Bux Sial so turned against the appellant as if he was after his blood, the appellant was involved in criminal case of wrongful confinement and his brother who was a student was dragged in 107 Cr.P.C. Proceedings and ultimately on account of such happenings, the appellant became so controversial rather unpopular that he had to be shifted from Mirpur Mathelo to Jacobabad. If the above things prove nothing else, they provide sufficient material to establish the naivety and tactlessness of the appellant. Somehow the Enquiry Officer has exhonerated him of the charge of tactlessness. Accordingly we too do not wish to disturb his finding.
27. ' The part (b) of the charge-sheet contains as many as ten subcharges. The enquiry report reveals that each subcharge has been discussed separately. The appellant has been found guilty of only three subcharges indicated at S. Nos. (iv), (vii) and (viii).
28. ' The findings of the Enquiry Officer on subcharge (iv) are as under:-- "The respondent hurriedly acted on such report of the process-server and passed order of attachment of property on the day the application was made, without affording opportunity to the persons complained against of being heard. It is manifest that the respondent was keen to award punishment on Mr. Rasool Bux and it was carried out by attaching his furniture with police aid. Here the question would arise as to why the respondent did so. There are more than one reasons therefor. Firstly, because the order made by him was allegedly disobeyed and he perhaps took it to be an open challenge to his authority. Secondly, that the persons in whose favor the infringed order had been passed were the subordinates of the respondent and it involved question of his prestige.
29. Thirdly, that Mr. Rasool Bux, Advocate had already offended the judge and his staff by sending an application against both the officials namely Wali Muhammad Bailiff and Mahmood Copyist, and the District Judge had made orders few days earlier for transfer of the former and termination of service of the latter and those orders were received by the respondent few days before and he (Mr. Rasool Bux) had sent a telegram dated 16-4-1975 to the District Judge, Sukkur, and an application dated 17-4-1975 to his Lordship the Chief Justice that the Civil Judge was not implementing the orders, and that must have added fuel to the fire, which burst into the action taken against Mr. Rasool Bux, Advocate of attachment of his office furniture. According to me, it was a flagrant act of vendetta committed under the authority of judicial office."
30. ' The admitted facts leading to the subcharge at S.No, (iv) are that Mr. Rasool Bux, a local lawyer purchased a house which was in occupation of Wali Muhammad Bailiff and Mahmood Copyist working in the Civil Court, Mirpur Mathelo where the appellant was Civil Judge. The said Advocate desired the above employees of the Court to vacate the house. Soon thereafter Wali Muhammad Bailiff was transferred to Shikarpur and Mahmood Copyist was discharged from service.
31. Nevertheless they filed suit for injunction against Mr. Rasool Bux in an attempt to stop their eviction from the house in question. The appellant as a Civil Judge not only granted interim injunction against the said Advocate but also ordered attachment of his office furniture on the basis of the alleged disobedience of his order of interim injunction. As has been discussed in the enquiry report, the order of interim injunction was not legally served on Mr. Rasool Bux, Advocate. Even if the service of the order were legal and proper, still the said Advocate was entitled to notice before taking extreme action against him in the shape of attachment of his office furniture. This was all the more necessary because the opposite party were none else than employees of the very Civil Court in which the suit was pending. As disclosed in the enquiry report, the appellant has admitted that he had not issued notice to Mr. Rasool Bux, Advocate before ordering the attachment of his office furniture. Even the appellant himself has not denied his omission to issue notice before ordering the attachment of office furniture of Mr. Rasool Bux, Advocate. In this regard the appellant's statement in para. 20 of his explanation dated 11-1-1983 is significant. It reads as follows:-- "The findings of learned Enquiry Officer on these allegations are erroneous and not to be accepted according to law as there is no mandatory provision for the issuance of notice before taking any action against the person who disobeyed the order of the Court."
32. ' We are satisfied from the reasoning adopted by the Enquiry Officer and the appellant's own admission that the conclusion recorded by the Enquiry Officer in respect of the sub charge (iv) hereinabove is unexceptionable.
33. ' The subs charges at S. Nos. (vii) and (viii) are in respect of the telegram dated 17-4-1975 and copy of complaint dated 9-4-1975 respectively. They were made by Mr. Rasool Bux, Advocate, first addressed to the District Judge, Sukkur and the second addressed to the Chief Justice. However, both the communications contained same allegations that the appellant was not implementing the two orders of the District Judge one relating to transfer of Wali Muhammad Bailiff to Shikarpur and another with regard to termination of services of Mahmood Copyist as he was deeply interested in them. The evidence of the District Judge shows that on complaint of Mr. Rasool Bux, Advocate, he held enquiry against the above two employees of the Court and in consequence he passse d order dated 10-4-1975 whereby Wali Muhammad Bailiff was transferred and services of Mahmood Copyist were terminated. He, however, did not remember when his order was implemented. However, in reply to question put to him by the appellant in cross-examination, the District Judge stated. "The Civil Judge had informed under his letter dated 15-4-1975 that Mahmood had been relieved on 14-4-1975. Further report was received from him that Wali Muhammad Bailiff had been relieved on 19-4-1975. No further action was therefore taken in the matter."
34. ' Despite what the District Judge has stated on the issue of delay in implementation of his order dated 10-4-1975 the Enquiry Officer has recorded his views as under: "The record shows that the order of termination of service of Mahmood Copyist was received by the respondent on 14-4-1975. The respondent submitted report dated 15-4-1975 that Mahmood Copyist was relieved on 14-4-1975. The order of transfer of Wali Muhammad Bailiff is said to have been received on 16-4-1975. But there is clear overwriting of the date below the initial of the respondent on the order. The orders of the termination of service of Mahmood Copyist and the transfer order in respect of Wali Muhammad Bailiff bear consecutive outward numbers of the same date and it may be presumed that both were dispatched on the same date and they had reached the same destination on the same day. In that case, overwriting in the date of receipt of order of Wali Muhammad Bailiff is a forgery committed to justify delay in implementation of the order as the bailiff was relieved on 19-4-1975. The respondent's interest in both the officials is borne out from his conduct in suit No,14 of 1975 filed by them as discussed above under charge No,b(iv). Of course, few days' time in relieving an official on transfer does not matter much. But in view of the scandal the two officials and the respondent were involved in the said suit No,14 of 1975, the implementation of the order of transfer must have been purposely delayed as to facilitate making of the application U/O. 39 rule 2 (3) C.P.C. On 18-4-1975 and passing of order of attachment on the very day getting it executed on the next day. Evidently there is no doubt that implementation of the order of transfer of Wali Muhammad Bailfiff was purposely delayed to wreak vengeance on Mr. Rasool Bux, for having made complaints against the two officials and also the respondent...
35. ' In conclusion, it stands proved that the respondent had purposely delayed implementation of the order of transfer of Wali Muhammad Bailiff."
36. ' We have given our due thought to the Enquiry Officer's reasoning as stated above and it appears to us very convincing. Accordingly we go along with him in concluding that the charge of the delay in implementation of the District Judge's order dated 10-4-1975 stands proved.
37. ' The last charge contained in part (c) of the charge-sheet is with regard to complaints of corruption, misconduct and rude behavior made against the appellant during the period of his posting at Jacobabad. It is disclosed in the enquiry report that at Jacobabad the appellant had tussle with members of Bar and there were complaints against him from the litigant public and his reputation as under cloud. It further shows that the appellant fell out with Mr. Qutubuddin haheem, advocate so much that he got his cases transferred from his Court. According to the report even senior member of the Jacobabad Bar, Mr. Muhammad Daud has serious greivance against the appellant. The Enquiry report further goes to show that one litigant Ahmad Faqir made complaint that he was rebuked by the appellant, that Ghulam Nabi Soomro sent telegram to the Chief Justice that the appellant was selling justice through his agents Bala. Soomar and others, that Abdul Khaliq Pathan made application to the Chief Justice making similar allegations against the appellant, that one similar application was made to the Chief Justice in the name of Amanullah of Jacobabad and on top of all this the then District Judge Jacobabad Mr. Abdul Qadeer Choudhry now Chief Justice of Baluchistan High Court had made detailed report dated 19th July 1976 to the High Court that the appellant was not enjoying good reputation.
38. ' We have carefully perused the explanation dated 11-1-1983 furnished by the appellant in reply to the enquiry report. It is absolutely silent with regard to the Enquiry Officer's findings on the charge contained at part (c) of the charge-sheet. Throughout his explanation the appellant has not made even a casual reference to the above charge. Therefore it would not be out of way to raise a presumption that the appellant had nothing to say against the said charge and he had accepted it by maintaining his silence thereon. It may be worthwhile to reproduce the findings of the Enquiry Officer on charge at (c) as under: ' The complaints made against the respondent from some advocates and litigants during the tenure of his posting at Jacobabad and some applications received against him during the course of his present posting at Moro do not make out charge of misconduct or corruption against the respondent. But they do convey the impression that the respondent lacked tact in achieving smooth sailing with the members of the Bar at all three places of his posting. He was asked what were the reasons for complaints against him. His reply was that it was because of his reluctance to grant frequent adjournments. His reply may be true to some extent, but tactful handling could have enabled him to maintain agitating atmosphere. All the instances dealt with above do make out that the respondent had conducted himself tactlessly."
39. While generally agreeing with the above findings, we would like to observe that the material available on record in support of the said charge certainly casts a deep shadow on the appellant's conduct and integrity. But since the Enquiry Officer has held him guilty of only tactlessness, we would also endorse that finding. It may further be pointed out that the Enquiry Officer has also taken into consideration the material relating to the appellant's posting at Moro. However it does not form part of the charge-sheet and as such it has got to be ignored. Even if it is excluded from consideration, our findings will remain un-affected as the same stand proved on the basis of the material with regard to the appellant's posting at Jacobabad.
40. ' In the end we would like to make it clear that we need not discuss the scores of authorities, specified in the long list separately submitted by the appellant because we feel that they are not applicable in the instant case and consequently no usefit4 purpose would be served by such discussion.
41. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that charges are proved against the appellant to the extent discussed in the foregoing paragraphs. Accordingly we maintain the impugned order of the appellant's removal from service and dismiss his appeal with no order as to costs. However we hereby direct that the appellant shall be paid the emoluments admissible to him under the rules up to the date of his removal from service. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.