1. These proceedings in contempt arise from report, dated 23-7-1990 of Deputy Registrar (Confidential) which is reproduced below in extenso: "I attended the meeting today in the office of the Additional Chief Secretary in connection with the consideration of nominations for the 23rd Shariah (Islamic Law) Course. The Board has cleared the four officers nominated by this Court.
2. I am, however, at pains to point out the prejudicial mind of the A.C.S., I introduced myself. The A.C.S. Remarked `where is the Registrar'. I replied that he had assignments with the Hon'ble Chief Justice out of Lahore. Then, the names of the nominees of various Departments were taken up turn by turn for consideration. As regards the nominees of this Court, the A.C.S. Wanted to clear three officers. I pointed out that as has been the previous consistent practice, when the quota of officers falling to the Punjab Province was 20, the High Court had eight nominees to its share and when this number has been reduced to 10, four nominees of this Court are recommended to the Shariah Academy. At this, the A.C.S. Observed that there was no fixed quota for the High Court and only three officers will be recommended. I then insisted that before the decision is reflected in the minutes, my objection in the above terms may be recorded. The A.C.S. Also observed that if four officers were to be nominated, then why a panel of 5/6 officers had not been forwarded to the Government as the decision rests with them to make selection out of the panel and with the four nominees the Govt.
3. Had been left with no discretion in the matter. At this juncture, the A.C.S. Also remarked that the High Court has started entering into quarrel with the Govt. He just gave me a letter in original from the Registrar of this Court and remarked `Read it'. The letter was in relation to the transfer of services of Mr. Allah Bakhsh Ranjha, Section Officer/Under Secratery as Deputy Solicitor wherein it had been pointed out to the Government that the Hon'ble Chief Justice had taken serious exception to this step suddenly without taking this Court into confidence and directed that the Government may be asked either to repatriate the officer to the Judiciary or post him as Section Officer/Under Secretary in the Law Department, against which post he had been originally nominated by the High Court. I handed over the letter to the A.C.S. Saying that the Govt. May deal with the reference in the manner they like. He asked me specifically to convey his observations to the Authorities and I replied that I shall do so. At the end of the scrutiny, it was pointed out that only 9 officers, including three out of four recommended by the High Court, had been cleared. At this stage, I again pointed out that four officers were to be recommended from the side of the High Court. After some discussion over the 10th officer with the Law Secretary vis-a-vis the High Court, the four officers recommended by the High Court were cleared. Submitted for information and such orders as the Authorities may be pleased to pass."
4. After going through this report, I felt that Muhammad Pervaiz Masood, Addl. Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore had prima facie not only acted in a manner which was intended to or tends to bring the authority of the High Court into disrespect but had also used contumacious remarks against the Court. I sincerely feel that if the present judicial system is to survive, then its existence and dignity have to be safeguarded jealously against reckless onslaughts including any implied or insinuated attempt made consciously or unconsciously to bring the judiciary into disrepute, disrespect or expose it to ridicule. I was of the view that it was necessary in the interest of effective administration of justice that the respondent should be proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act. Notice was accordingly issued directing him to appear on 18-8-1990 and show cause why proceedings in contempt should not be initiated against him. In response to the notice served on him, the respondent has already filed written reply (marked "A") in which, denying the truth of the allegations made against him in the report of the Deputy Registrar (Confidential), he stated that he has great respect for the Courts and cannot even think of making any comments of contumacious nature. In the end he has stated "However, in order to show my utmost respect and regard for the Honourable High Court, I tender unconditional apology and pray that the Honourable Court may graciously drop the proceedings and be pleased to discharge the show- cause notice. " Today he has entered appearance with his learned counsel Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate. When asked by the Court as to whether he desired to contest the allegations, the respondent stated that he has decided not to contest the notice. He tendered unqualified apology and has thrown himself at the Court's mercy without demur. Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the fact that the respondent has virtually placed himself at the mercy of the Court, he has nothing to add except that indulgent view of the matter may be taken.
2. I have considered the matter very carefully. In view of the correct attitude adopted and the conduct exhibited by him in the Court today, I feel that the respondent has sincerely tendered unqualified apology and has genuinely placed himself at the Court's mercy. So, following the golden principle that in contempt matter, the grace lies and the cause of justice is also advanced in showing indulgence to the person who places himself at the mercy of the Court, rather than proceeding further and or punishing him, the proceedings are dropped and the notice is discharged.
5. N.H.Q./S-792/L Notice discharged. 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.