1. ' MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).- This appeal arose from appellant's dismissal from service vide Chief Minister's order dated 12-3-1990 communicated to the appellant 10 days later on 22-3-1990.
2. ' The appellant's case, as disclosed in the memo of appeal, is that he joined Government service as Civil Judge on 11-1-1981 and was promoted as Senior Civil Judge in 1985. He was posted in that capacity at Shikarpur from 31-7-1986 to 29-5-1989. During that period he was first served with show-cause notice dated 27-2-1989 to which he submitted his reply on 15-4-1989 and thereafter a charge-sheet accompanied by statement of allegations was served on him on 22-5-1989. The appellant submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 13-6-1989. Mr. Justice Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo was nominated as Enquiry Officer to hold a detailed enquiry into the allegations made against the appellant. In course of the enquiry several witnesses were examined both on behalf of the department and the appellant. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 17th October, 1989, holding the charges Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 as proved and charges Nos. 4 and 5 as not proved. The appellant was then given final show-cause notice alongwith a copy of enquiry report. After considering his reply to the said show-cause notice, the appellant was dismissed from service as mentioned above. He made review application against the order of his dismissal and after waiting for usual period of 90 days for decision thereon, he filed the present service appeal before this Tribunal on 24-7-1990.
3. ' We heard Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan for the appellant and Mr. M.M. Aqil on behalf of the official respondents. We also went through the case record.
4. ' The statement of allegations served on the appellant reads as under:-
(1) That in F.C. Suit No, 115 of 1986 an application under Order 40, rule 1, C.P.C. Was filed on 24-11-1986.
5. Objections were filed on 7-4-1987. The arguments were heard on 14-3-1988 and the application was dismissed on 16-1-1989 after about 9 months of the hearing of arguments. It appears from the case diary that this case was adjourned for. 16 times for filing of written statement when the same had already been filed on 3-6-1986. He signed diary without ascertaining the stage of the case, which amounts to negligence on his part.
(2) That in F.C. Suit No, 121 of 1986 injunction was granted on 19-8-1986 by him. Application under section 39, rule 2(3), C.P.C. Was filed on 10-6-1987. Objections have been filed but the same is still pending for disposal.
(3) That in Rent Application No, 41 of 1983 entire evidence was recorded by 2-9-1985. Thereafter this matter is being adjourned from time to time (about 70 times) for hearing of final arguments but no proceedings has been taken by him since his posting at Shikarpur to date barring adjourning the matter, which shows inefficiency on his part.
(4) That as alleged, he asked Abdul Manan Soomro (Applicant) to provide air-conditioned car or in the alternative a Taxi for Karachi for 4 days and back to which applicant refused.
(5) That as alleged, he has thick relation with the defendant Ghulam Murtaza and has visited many times at his residence and has been roaming in the city in car with one Naeem son of Ghulam Murtaza which amounts misconduct on his part being a Judicial Officer.
(6) That he has a persistent reputation of being corrupt officer."
6. ' The enquiry report dated 17th October, 1989 discloses that only four charges specified at serial Nos.
7. 1, 2, 3 and 6 hereinabove were held as proved. Since the punishment of dismissal from service was awarded to the appellant on the basis of conclusions arrived at by the learned Enquiry Officer, we would confine ourselves only to the charges held as proved against the appellant. It would be convenient to examine the findings on each charge separately.
8. ' The charge at serial No, 1 speaks of lethargy and negligence displayed by the appellant in F.C. Suit No, 115 of 1986. On the one hand he took more than two years to decide an interlocutory application filed under Order 40, Rule 1, C.P.C. And on the other hand he showed gross negligence in granting 16 adjournments for the purpose of filing written statement which, in fact, had already been filed. In his reply, the appellant frankly admitted the correctness of the charge that the application for appointment of receiver took over two years to be disposed of. However, he attempted to explain the reasons for the delay, which in our opinion, were of routine nature and not very impressive. So far the charge of negligence was concerned, the appellant's only explanation was that due to heavy load of work the Reader of tht Court who used to write case diary for him had mistakenly written the wrong stage of the case for which he begged to be excused. Even if he got his Reader to do the work of diary writing, the appellant was personally responsible to verify the correctness of the diary written by the Reader before signing the same. Having failed to show the necessary vigilance in this regard, the charge of negligence was proved against him. Accordingly we endorse the conclusion of the learned Enquiry Officer that the charge at serial No, 1 was proved.
9. ' Like the first charge, the charge at serial No, 2 is also of the delay that appellant made in disposing interlocutory application. Although the application was filed under Order 39, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. On 10- 6-1987, it remained undisposed even after lapse of two years. This charge was also not denied by the appellant in his reply, though he tried in vain to explain away the delay. The reasons assigned by the appellant for the delay were far from convincing and not so strong to prove his helplessness.
10. As such we see no reason to differ with the findings of the learned Enquiry Officer that the charge at serial No, 2 stood proved.
11. ' The charge at serial No, 3 is with regard to inefficiency of the appellant inasmuch as the Rent Case No, 41/83 was adjourned by him 70 times without recording a slight progress in the case during his entire tenure of posting at Shikarpur. While admitting this charge in his reply, the appellant explained that the case was mostly adjourned on motion of the applicant's own Advocate, Mr. Lal Muhammad, who happened to be senior member of Shikarpur Bar. His further explanation was in these words " in the face of bulk of cases which is beyond the capacity of a Single Judge delays do occur which are inevitable." In our opinion the above explanation was hardly sufficient to justify the adjournment of the case for 70 times. We, therefore, hold that the charge at serial No, 3 was also proved from the appellant's own admission.
12. ' The charge at serial No, 6 is to the effect that "the appellant has persistent reputation of being corrupt". The appellant has vehemently denied this charge, adding, that no District Judge under whom he had served gave him such report nor he ever received any report of that kind. According to him some Advocates were in the habit of making false and wild allegations when their cases were decided against them. However, he did not name any Advocate who was likely to figure as witness against him on the above charge. The perusal of the enquiry report however shows that several Advocates came forward to give evidence that the appellant had poor reputation of a corrupt Judge. They were drawn from Shikarpur as well as Mirpurkhas where the appellant had admittedly served as Senior Civil Judge.
13. ' The Advocates examined by the department in course of the enquiry were M/s. Quresh Ali and Abdul Manan from Shikarpur and Muhammad Ismail, Rochi Ram, Hemraj, Ch. Muhammad Sadiq and Muhammad Ahmed from Mirpurkhas. Mr. Quresh All stated in his evidence that the appellant did not do any work without receiving money, that he used to receive gifts from ordinary people in his chamber, that he was addicted to intoxicants and that he was a womaniser. Similarly Mr. Abdul Manan disclosed before the Enquiry Officer that appellant had bad reputation as he took money in 95 per cent of the cases decided by him. He further stated that in his own case decided by the appellant on 24-1-1989, he told him personally that there was nothing in the case unless he paid some `Nazrana'. This witness also told the Enquiry Officer that the appellant used to take liquor in the house of Ghulam Murtaza who figured as defendant in two Suits Nos. 115/86 and 121/86 pending before him. Although both the Advocates were subjected to severe cross-examination by the appellant, yet he failed to *ash off the impact created by their evidence. In our opinion there existed only Judge-Advocate relationship between the appellant and the said two Advocates. Of course the indications were available on record that the appellant decided certain matters against the parties for whom they appeared as Advocate. But that was the part of the game. Like the said Advocates, many Advocates loose their cases in Court every day. We cannot believe that losing of cases in the appellant's Court was enough to prompt the above two Advocates to turn against him so much so that they would not even hesitate to give false evidence against him, little bothering about their conscience. The said two Advocates are not shown to have any other reason to give evidence against the appellant. Accordingly we hold that the learned Enquiry Officer had rightly believed their evidence.
14. ' But the above two Advocates from Shikarpur were not alone in their evidence against the appellant. Several other Advocates from Mirpurkhas another station of appellant's posting had also deposed against him before the Enquiry Officer. According to Mirpurkhas Advocates whose names are mentioned above, the appellant had poor reputation throughout his tenure at Mirpurkhas. Their evidence further disclosed that his reputation for corruption became so notorious that Local Bar Association was constrained to pass a resolution against him to the effect that the appellant was involved in corrupt practices. In our opinion the resolution passed by the Bar Association reflected the height of the appellant's notoriety. He did not deny the passing of the resolution against him.
15. His explanation however was that Mr. Hemraj who happened to be President of the District Bar Association was behind that resolution, as he was entangled in bitter dispute with him. No doubt there is evidence to show that the appellant had convicted Mr. Hemraj for contempt of Court.
16. Furthermore, Akhtar Saeed, Advocate of Mirpurkhas who was examined by the appellant in his own defence affirmed in course of the enquiry that after the appellant dismissed two suits of Mr. Hemraj for non-prosecution he appeared in the Court in his presence and threatened the appellant that unless he stopped such practices he would be physically thrown out. But it is not denied that the District Judge in appeal filed by Mr. Hemraj set aside his conviction in the contempt case.
17. Regardless of who was right and who was wrong, all the above happenings did not speak well of the appellant who as Judge seemed to be a complete failure. The above evidence not only proved him to be corrupt Judge but also brought into light his other weaknesses including his wanton misbehaviour and lack of tact in conducting Court proceedings. During his tenure at both the places not only the appellant's own image suffered but also the judiciary's fair name was adversely affected.
18. ' It is true that a number of Advocates from both the above places examined by him in his defence attempted by their evidence to improve the appellant's image. Mr. Akhtar Saeed of Mirpurkhas only related the background of appellant's quarrel with Mr. Hemraj. It did not appeal to us that the Bar Association which consisted of even independent Advocates would stoop so low that at the bidding of Mr. Hemraj, its President, would pass a false resolution against the appellant. Mr. Zaheeruddin also an Advocate of Mirpurkhas besides confirming the dispute between Mr. Hemraj and the appellant stated that he did not hear from any one excepting Mr. Hemraj that the appellant was corrupt. Similarly Mr. Lal Muhammad Advocate from Shikarpur stated in his evidence that he did not receive any complaint that the appellant was corrupt except from M/s. Quresh All and Mr. Abdul Manan, Advocates. M/s. Mazhar Ali and Ali Gohar, also Advocates from Shikarpur, did not hear about appellant's corruption. It was only Mr. Gul Muhammad, Advocate of Shikarpur who went a step further to certify that the appellant was Judge in true sense.
19. ' The learned enquiry officer who was himself an Hon'ble Judge of High Court did not attach much importance to above defence witnesses as in his opinion they appeared to have been managed by the appellant, as they did not utter a word about any judicial case decided by the appellant. The learned appellant's counsel took serious exception to the observation of the learned Enquiry Officer inasmuch as that the appellant had managed the defence witnesses. His objection was manifestly without any substance. By his above observations the learned Enquiry Officer perhaps intended to convey that it was not at all difficult for the appellant who was Judge to persuade some Advocates to appear in his defence and say a few nice words in his favour. We are of the view that even if the Advocates who had given evidence in defence were not declared as false witnesses, yet their evidence did not materially help the appellant. May be that the defence witnesses were totally unaware of the dark side of the appellant's judicial life. As such their evidence cannot be held to have the effect of demolishing the evidence of those Advocates who were examined by the department and who had given evidence against the appellant. As pointed out earlier even the Advocates who gave evidence against the appellant had no motive to give false evidence against him. Accordingly their evidence could not be dismissed lightly. Consequently we agree with the findings of the learned Enquiry Officer that the charge at serial No, 6 was also proved against the appellant. - Having arrived at the above conclusions we see no reason to interfere with the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the charges referred to above. Since the charge at serial No, 6 was serious one the appellant did not deserve any leniency in the punishment already awarded to him.
20. Accordingly appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 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.