' NOOR NUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).---The appellant Akbar Khan was Assistant Incharge in the Federal Service Tribunal when the Appeals Nos. 383, 384, 385 and 386(P) of 1991 were filed in the Federal Service Tribunal by the appellant M/s. Mukhtar Muhammad, Fazal-e-Malik, Badam GuI and Fazal-e-Hamid respectively. The same appeals were admitted on 23-4-1992 with the following orders: "Heard. Admit subject to all just exceptions. Notice. "
' On 26-4-1992, the Deputy Registrar of the Federal Service Tribunal has written the diary sheet as under:-- "Issue notice to the appellant for cash security and costs of service."
' On 2-5-1992, the notices were sent to the appellant, contents of which are as under:- ' X X X ' Whereas the above-noted appeal has been admitted to Regular Hearing.
' Now, therefore, you are hereby directed to separately deposit with or send to the Registrar through separate money orders on the above-noted address, the following amounts:-
(i) Rs,100 for Cash Security:
(ii) Rs,200 for cost of service:. within seven days of the receipt of this notice in accordance with the rule 11(3) of the Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974.
' Take notice that if you fail to comply with the aforesaid directions your appeal may be dismissed by this Tribunal."
' The appellant had not deposited Cash Security and cost of service, therefore, the Reader wrote a note on the file on 22-8-1992 which reads as under: "The appeal was admitted on 23-4-1992 and notice dated 2-5-1992 was issued to the appellant for depositing Cash Security and costs of service. The appellant has failed to comply with orders of the Tribunal. "
' On 26-8-1992, the appellant made applications for the depositing of Cash Security and costs of service, which was allowed. But when they were asked by the Deputy Registrar why they had not deposited the amount before, they told him that they had already deposited the desired amount which is lying with Mr. Akbar Khan, Assistant-in-Charge of the Federal Service Tribunal. The amount was Rs,1,200 for all four appeals (i.e, Rs,300 for each). On this statement of the appellants, the Assistant-in-Charge Akbar Khan was called by the Deputy Registrar and asked him whether he had received amount of Rs,1,200 for depositing Cash Security and costs of service by the appellants or not? On this query the Assistant-incharge Akbar Khan, recorded his statement before the Deputy Registrr on 26-8-1992 in which he has admitted that he had received Rs,1,200 from the appellants as Cash Security and costs of service in the above appeals. On the same day i.e, 26-8-1992, Mr. Akbar Khan had paid Rs,1,700 to M/s. Mukhtar Muhammad and Fazal Malik in the presence of witnesses who have signed over it. Out of this amount the appellants deposited Cash Security and cost of service with the cashier. Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar had written the following note on the file on 26-8-1993: "The appellant has deposited cash security and costs of service. Issue notice to the respondents."
' The admission statement of Mr. Akbar Khan, given before the Deputy Registrar on 26-8-1992 is as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' Cast Security 386(P)/91 385, 384, 383) {{URDU TEXT}} ' Received Rs,1,200 from Mtikhtar Muhammad and Fazal Malik, Fazal Hameed for cost of service and security. Kindly parden me once time."
(Sd.)
(AKBAR KHAN) {{URDU TEXT}} ' On 23-2-1993, another complainant Mr. Ali Zaman had made a statement before the Deputy Registrar stating therein that Mr. Akbar Khan has received Rs,4,000 on demand from him on promise to get the judgment in his favour in Appeal No, 202(R)/92. The complainant Mr. All Zaman also presented himself before the Registrar on 27-2-1993 and confirmed his statement.
2. After this, the Deputy Registrar, reported the matter to the Registrar on 1-3-1993 in which he had mentioned misdeeds of the appellant Akbar Khan, as he had received Rs, 1,200 from the appellants in Appeals Nos. 383, 384, 385 and 386(P)/91 as Cash Security and Costs of Service, and got Rs, 4,000 from one All Zaman, appellant in Appeal No,202(R)/92, to get his appeal decided in his favour, and also issued attested copies of the documents in Appeal No,191(R)/91 without depositing the attestation fee with the Cashier of the Federal Service Tribunal.
3. After this the appellant was given a charge-sheet, dated 6-3-1993 along with statement of allegations, as under:- "(1) That you Mr. Akbar Khan, Assistant-in-charge (under suspension), Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad received Rs, 1,200 on 23rd April, 1991 from M/s. Mukhtar Ahmed, Fazal Malik, in Appeals Nos.383, 384, 385 and 386(P) of 1991 for depositing cash security and cost of service with the Cashier of the Tribunal but you failed to do so.
(2) That you received a sum of Rs,4,000 on 23-2-1993 from Mr. Ali Zaman s/o Haji Mir Hussain, resident of 443, Shoaib Manzal, Javed Shaheed Road, Jinnah Abad, Abbottabad as illegal gratification allegedly to help the complainant in Appeal No,202(R)/1992 pending adjudication in the Tribunal.
(3) That on 11-1-1993 you issued attested copies of memo. Of Appeal No, 191(R)/1991 (Dr. Muhammad Hussain v. WAPDA) without causing the requisite fee deposited with the Cashier of the Tribunal."
' On 29-3-1993, the appellant replied the charge-sheet and statement of allegations, which is as under:- "With reference to the charge-sheet No,F.14(3)/93-FST, dated 6th March, 1993, I beg to lay down the following few lines for your kind consideration:-
(a) That the allegations made in the charge-sheet are baseless and unfounded. The position with regard thereto is stated as under:
(b) Allegation No,1. ---The position with regard to this allegation is that the appellants in Appeals Nos. 383, 384, 385 and 386(P) of 1991 were known to me since before as their appeals had been admitted and they belong to Peshawar, they handed over to me a sum of Rs, 1,200 for save deposit as `Amanat' with the request that I should receive the call deposit notice unofficially on their behalf and thereafter deposit the amount with the cashier of the Tribunal saying that this will save them from trouble of coming to Islamabad and then going back to Peshawar simply for this petty work.
Unfortunately I could not receive the notice due to my pre-occupation with the office work and it was dispatched to them at their Peshawar addresses. When they came here on receipt of the notices, I return the money to them in the presence of Deputy Registrar. Not only that I gave them an amount of Rs,500 extra for their journey expenses. The amount was duly deposited by them with the cashier of the Tribunal. My only intention in receiving the money from them was to save them from trouble of coming and going back from Peshawar to Islamabad as they are well-known to me since long. This is evident from the act that the amount of security and cost of service for the four appeals come to Rs,1,200 exactly.
(c) Allegation No,2. ---The allegation regarding the receipt of illegal gratification of Rs,4,000 from Mr. Ali Zaman on 23-2-1993, for allegedly helping him in Appeal No,202(R)/92 is false, baseless and without any foundation. This is not known to me and I vehemently deny the same.
(d) Allegation No,3. ---The allegation is denied. Copies of memo of Appeal No,191(R) of 1991 were never issued by me and do not bear any signature. As such the question of causing loss of requisite fee to the Tribunal does not arise.
' Sir, I have put in about 19 years service with brilliant service record in the Tribunal. It has always been my endeavour to perform my duties honestly and sincerely and to render service to everybody. I feel that the allegations against me are cooked up and have been made by some interested person to implicate me falsely to lower me estimation in the eyes of my superiors. In view of the position stated above, it is requested that the charges against me may kindly be withdrawn."
4. After denial of appellant of the allegations levelled against him, Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad, Administrative Officer, was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 7-3-1993. He had started the inquiry in the above matter. He had examined the following witnesses:- ' Mr. Mukhtar Muhammad, appellant, ' Mr. Fazal Malik, appellant, ' Mr. Yaqub Shah, appellant, ' Mr. Muhammad Hayat, Reader, ' Mr. Muhammad Hussain, UDC, ' Mr. Muhammad Sabir, UDC, ' Mr. Sajjad Akhtar, LDC, ' Mr. Ali Zaman s/o Mir Hussain Khan, appellant, ' Mr. Saif-ul-Islam, Deputy Registrar.
' The witnesses Messrs Mukhtar Muhammad, Fazal Malik and Yaqub Shah, who were appellants in Appeals Nos. 383(P)/91 and 384(P)/91, had stated that the appellant Akbar Khan had recorded his admission statement before the Deputy Registrar on 26-8-1992 in their presence. Appellant Akbar Khan had signed the same and they have also signed on the statement of Akbar Khan. Further, they stated that they had given Akbar Khan Rs,1,200 as security fee and costs of service which was to be deposited in the Appeals Nos.383, 384, 385 and 386(P) of 1991, but that amount was not deposited by Akbar Khan and their appeals were delayed to be decided. The witnesses M/s. Muhammad Hayat, Reader and Muhammad Hussain, UDC have stated before the Enquiry Officer that the admission statement of the appellant Akbar Khan, was recorded in their presence and it was signed by the appellant and also by them. They further narrated that the appellant Akbar Khan had returned Rs,1,200 to the appellants alongwith Rs,500 as Travelling expenses. Further, they stated that the appellant had not deposited the amount of Rs,1,200 as cost of service and security deposit with the cashier of the Tribunal and he had kept the money for his personal use. The witness Mr. Ali Zaman, who had given Rs,4,000 to the appellant Akbar Khan, as illegal gratification for the favourable decision in Appeal No, 202(R)/92, stated that he had recorded his statement before the Deputy Registrar on 23-21993 which was also confirmed before the Registrar on 27-2- 1993. The statement is as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' Mr. All Zaman recorded his statement before the Enquiry Officer on 10-4-1993 in which he stated that the statement he had given before the Deputy Registrar on 23-2-1993 and confirmed on 27-2- 1993 before the Registrar, was correct. Further, he stated that he had also produced a cassette of Akbar Khan's statement which was recorded in it. He also stated that he is recording his statement on 10-4-1993 in presence of Akbar Khan. The witnesses M/s. Sajjad Akhtar and Muhammad Hussain, before the Enquiry Officer, supported the statement of Mr. Ali Zaman regarding illegal gratification of Rs,4,000 received by Akbar Khan, and they have also signed the statement as witnesses. The appellant Akbar Khan also, recorded his statement before the Enquiry Officer which is reproduced below:- {{URDU TEXT}} (Sd.)
Akbar Khan 4-4-93.
' The witnesses Mr. Muhammad Sabir also stated before the Enquiry Officer, that the appellant had recorded his admission statement before the Deputy Registrar on 26-8-1992 in his presence and he had also signed over it. The witnesses Mr. Saiful Islam, Deputy Registrar, has also recorded his statement before the Enquiry Officer that he had already submitted report alongwith documents to the Registrar and all the statements were recorded in his presence and have been signed by the witnesses. 'Admission' statement of Akbar Khan was also signed by all the witnesses.
5. The Enquiry Officer, after recording the statements of all the witnesses alongwith the appellant, submitted the inquiry report, which is self-explanatory and exhaustive on the above matter. The findings of the inquiry officer are that charges (a) and (b) stand proved beyond any doubt.
Regarding charge (c) the Enquiry Officer stated, "I give the benefit of doubt to the accused official and hold that the charge is not proved". Further, he stated in his inquiry report that the appellant was given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and also to produce his defence, if he so desired. However, he neither cross-examined the witnesses nor produced any evidence in his defence. The net result of inquiry is that charges (a) and (b) are proved against the accused official beyond any reasonable doubt while charge (c) is not proved. He had submitted the report to the Authorised Officer, for such action as he may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
6. The competent authority gave the final show-cause notice alongwith enquiry report, to the appellant on 10-6-1993 stating therein that the Enquiry Officer had reported that charges (a) and
(b) against him have been proved and why the major penalty of dismissal from service, should not be imposed upon him. The reply should reach the competent authority within 7 days and if he wants for personal hearing that will also be given to him.
7. The appellant replied the final show-cause notice and the inquiry report on 21-6-1993, in which he stated that the Enquiry Officer had not conducted the inquiry according to rules and had not allowed the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses and he had denied the allegations against him. After his reply to the final show-cause notice and inquiry report, the case was placed before the Authority (Chairman, Federal Service Tribunal) on 3-7-1993. On this report the Authority (Chairman, FST) had observed as under: "According to the finding of the Inquiry Officer, two charges are said to have been proved against Mr. Akbar Khan, Assistant-in-charge. In reply to Final show-cause notice, he has deviated from his earlier stand which was given in writing before the Deputy Registrar in presence of the staff members of the Tribunal as well as the complainants M/s. Mukhtar Muhammad Ahmed and Fazal Malik and their witnesses, as also the complainant Ali Zaman. All the persons concerning the complaints and the statements were the necessary parties and their statements should have been recorded in presence of the accused official, if not recorded earlier, and obtained their signatures.
Mr. Akbar Khan should also be given the opportunity of cross-examination and adduce evidence in their support. The inquiry officer has not said a word about the fact that these statements were obtained by him in presence of the accused official and he did cross-examine them. Mr. Akbar Khan, in reply to the Final show-cause notice, has taken legal objections to the inquiry proceedings.
The Authorised Officer did not take notice thereof and did not point out discrepancy in the inquiry proceedings. In the interest of justice, Mr. Akbar Khan is entitled to the copies of the statements/complaints used against him to rebut the charge properly and may have no grievance against non-observance of proper 'procedure during inquiry. I, therefore, feel it necessary to remand the case to the Inquiry Officer to observe all procedural formalities and complete it within a week and submit report."
' After above observation of the Chairman, FST, the copies of following documents were given to the appellant in the office but when he refused to take the documents, these were sent at his residential address 53/15 .B, G-9/2, Islamabad vide postal receipt No,00051, dated 13-7-1993;- "a copy of complaint, ' His own confessional statement, and written statements of M/s. Ali Zaman, Mukhtar Muhammad, Fazal Malik, Yakub Shah, Saif-ulIslam, Muhammad Hayat, Muhammad Sabir, Muhammad Hussain, and Sajjad Akhtar."
' The appellant was directed that he should be present on 13-7-1993 and in case he will not be present, the case will be proceeded against him ex parte. On 13-7-1993, in spite of notice, the appellant did not appear before the Enquiry Officer, though he marked his attendance in the Attendance Register of the office. Similarly other witnesses of the office staff were given notice to be present on 13-7-1993 for cross-examination by Akbar Khan, appellant. The other witnesses from the outside were also given notice telegraphically to be present on 15-7-1993. All the witnesses from the office staff and outsider were present before the Enquiry Officer on 15-7-1993, but the appellant Akbar Khan, came to office, signed his attendance on the Attendance Register and just after that he left office and went away and did not appear before the Enquiry Officer.
8. On 15-7-1993, the Enquiry Officer, again recorded statements of the witnesses. In their statements all the witnesses have stated that whatever they have stated earlier before the Enquiry Officer, their statements are the same and that the appellant's admission statement was recorded in their presence. The report of the Enquiry Officer, dated 17-7-1993 is reproduced below: "x x x By an order dated 4-3-1993, I was appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations levelled against Mr. Akbar Khan, Assistant-in-Charge (under suspension) vide charge-sheet dated 6-3-1993. Accordingly, I conducted the enquiry and submitted my report to the Authorised Officer on 6-6-1993. The matter was placed before the Authority (Chairman) who observed certain procedural deficiencies and remanded the case to me with the direction to observe all procedural formalities and complete it within a week and submit report. Accordingly, I issued telegraphic notice to all outside witnesses on 12-7-1993 to appear before me again on 15-7-1993. A notice was also issued on 13-7-1993, to Mr. Akbar Khan to make himself available in office with effect from 13- 7-1993 for cross-examining the witnesses whose statements had already been recorded and also to adduce any evidence, oral or documentary, in support of his defence. He was warned that in case he did not appear, the case would be decided ex parte. Mr. Akbar Khan refused to receive the notice to participate in the proceedings and accordingly, the same was sent to him, alongwith copies of complaint/statements of witnesses, at his residence by registered post.
' All the four witnesses from outside Islamabad, who had appeared earlier in the inquiry proceedings before me, appeared once again on 15-7-1993 and remained in attendance from 8- 00 a.m. To 12-30 p.m. Whereafter they left my office as there was an apprehension of traffic problem due to General Strike by Transporters. The witnesses from office staff also remained in attendance till 2-30 p.m. On 15-7-1993 but Mr. Akbar Khan did not turn up before me although he did come to office at about 8-00 a.m. But left office just after signing the Attendance Register as Y was later on informed. He had sent a message earlier that he would not participate in the remanded proceedings.
' The witnesses, who had got their statements recorded in the presence of Mr. Akbar Khan, as already indicated in para 11 of my report dated 6-6-1993, have re-affirmed their statements vide their signed statements enclosed. Mr. Akbar Khan was earlier also given an opportunity to cross- examine these witnesses and to adduce evidence in his defence and was given opportunity for the same again on 15-7-1993 but he has not availed, rather avoided to avail of that opportunity.
Accordingly, I also re-affirm my findings as given in my report dated 6-6-1993."
' The Enquiry Officer, sent the record to the Authorised Officer on 17-7-1993 for further action. On 18- 7-1993 the Authorised Officer, agreed with the report/view taken by the Enquiry Officer and recommended that the appellant may be dismissed from service with immediate effect. As a result the appellant was dismissed from service on 20-7-1993 on the charge of "misconduct and corruption". On 27-7-1993, the appellant made representation to the Establishment Division against the above order, which was not replied to and on expiry of 90 days statutory period, he filed this appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, on 16-11-1993.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the record particularly the inquiry report and replies of the appellant. We have also gone through the evidence of the witnesses with the help of both the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant alleged that the show-cause notice alongwith statement of allegations have been replied by the appellant in which he had denied the allegations Nos. 2 and 3 and allegation No,1 has been fully explained by the appellant stating that he had taken Rs,1,200 as security and cost of service from - the appellants (complainants) in good faith, which was ultimately returned by him alongwith Rs,500 extra for their travelling expenses. The inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer, which was based on certain irregularities including the fact that the appellant was not given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him. On the complaint of the appellant, the learned Chairman, FST (authority) had given opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant on 26-6-1993 and also asked the Enquiry Officer to allow the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses, but the Enquiry Officer had not supplied him the copies of relevant record and no notice for cross-examination of witnesses was served upon the appellant. Thus, the inquiry report and the findings are not based on cross-examination of the witnesses and appellant was condemned for not giving full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The inquiry was conducted in the absence of the appellant which is ex parte. Learned counsel for the appellant further alleged that the Enquiry Officer had given the notice for the cross- examination of witnesses on 13-7-1993 which was received by the appellant on 15-7-1993, which was very short period to cross-examine the witnesses. The appellant had not been given opportunity to go through the documents which were provided by the Enquiry Officer and received by the appellant on 15-7-1993. Thus, the inquiry is ex parte and suffers from many lapses/irregularities. The charges against the appellant have not been proved before the Enquiry Officer. The learned counsel further argued that the dismissal order dated 20-7-1993 is not based on positive evidence. In support he referred to PLD 1989 SC 335 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the order of dismissal from service should always be based on positive evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the dismissal order is void and illegal and may be set aside
10. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents, has refuted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and stressed that the dismissal order of the appellant dated 20- 7-1993 is based on the positive evidence of the witnesses and the admission statements of the appellant in the presence of witnesses who have signed over it. The charges Nos.1 and 2 have been proved against the appellant through evidence and documentary proof. Appellant being Assistant-in-Charge of the Federal Service Tribunal, it was not his duty to take Rs,1,200 from the appellants as security fee and cost of service in Appeals Nos. 383, 384, 385, 386(P)/91. If at all, he had taken the amount, he should have deposited the same just after getting the money, with the Cashier of the FST, which he had not done so. He received Rs,1,200 from the appellants on 23-4- 1992 and returned to the appellants on 26-8-1992. Thus, he utilized the amount for his private use and had not deposited the same with the Cashier. When it was complained then he was called by the Deputy Registrar, and he returned the amount to the appellants, otherwise it was not his intention to deposit the same with the Cashier. Further, Rs, 4,000 were taken by the appellant from the appellant Mr. Ali Zaman in Appeal No,202(R) of 1992 in the name of Member of FST as illegal gratification. The above allegations are proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt after thorough inquiry by the Enquiry Officer and positive evidence of the witnesses and the appellant had admitted the fact in his admission statement before the Deputy Registrar and also signed over it. The inquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer according to law and procedure and it does not suffer from any procedural defect. When there is admission of the accused before the competent authority, then there is no need of show-cause notice alongwith statement of allegations and final show-cause notice etc. It is wrong to say that the Enquiry Officer has taken proceedings ex parte against the appellant as he was duly served with the notice alongwith documents which were required by the appellant. The appellant had intentionally not cooperated with the inquiry and remained absent from the inquiry even when he was present in the office, as he was guilty. The inquiry against the appellant was conducted according to law, therefore, the appeal of the appellant may be dismissed with cost.
11. After hearing the above submissions of the parties, we are of the opinion that from very beginning to end, the appellant was given full opportunity as he was given show-cause notice along with statement of allegations, and he had submitted the reply of the show-cause notice etc. The evidence of the witnesses were recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the appellant was provided opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses but he inientionally did not appear before the Enquiry Officer to cross-examine the witnesses. Even his admission statement was also recorded in which he voluntarily admitted that he had taken Rs,1,200 from the appellants in Appeals Nos.383, 384, 385 and 386(P)/91. His admission before the Deputy Registrar in the presence of the witnesses and his signature and also signatures of the witnesses on his admission statement, shows that he had admitted his guilt. The amount of Rs,1,200 as cash security and cost of service in abovementioned appeals, was received by him on 23-4-1992 and he kept the amount with him for his personal use and had not deposited with the Cashier till 26-8-1992 the date on which he returned the amount to the appellants alongwith Rs,500 extra as journey expenses, in presence of the witnesses. The evidence of the witnesses in connection with second charge before the Enquiry Officer, also proved the guilt of the appellant. Further, it has been confirmed by the cassette which the talk between the complainant Ali Zaman and the appellant Mr. Akbar Khan about Rs,4,000 as illegal gratification in connection with Appeal No,202(R) of 1992, for a Member of the Federal Service Tribunal. The appellant was also given personal hearing by the Authority (Chairman, FST) on 26-6- 1993 and the Enquiry Officer had also served upon him a notice dated 13-7-1993 to appear before the Enquiry Officer for cross-examining the witnesses, but he intentionally did not appear before the Enquiry Officer though he was present in the office on 13-7-1993 and 15-7-1993 as it is evident from the Attendance Register on which he had signed his presence. In our mind when the appellant had himself admitted before the Enquiry Officer and recorded his admission statement before the Deputy Registrar in presence of the other witnesses and staff of the Federal Service Tribunal, about taking Rs,1,200 from the appellants as cash security and cost of service and Rs, 4,000 as illegal gratification, then there was no need of further inquiry or show-cause notice etc. As charges of misconduct and corruption against the appellant, were founded on the admitted facts, there was no need of holding any formal inquiry within the views of Supreme Court in PLD 1985 SC 134, 1987 SCM R 829, 1990 SCM R 447, 1993 SCM R 603, 1993 SCM R 956 and 1991 SCM R 140. In the instant case the appellant was given full opportunity to reply show-cause notice and was granted personal hearing and was also given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses but the appellant did not avail the opportunities and remained absent from the inquiry. The appellant at no stage seems to have claimed that he would produce witnesses in his defence: Civil Servant could not have a choice nor can he insist that a particular procedure for holding disciplinary proceeding should be followed. The appellant in his appeal in para. 8, has admitted that he had received the copies of written statements of ' witnesses alongwith notice dated. 13-7-1993 wherein it was clearly mentioned that he should make himself available with effect front 13-7-1993 to cross-examine the witnesses. According to him the said notice was received by him on 15-7-1993. Even after receipt of the said notice he did not appear before the Enquiry Officer to .Cross-examine the witnesses. Therefore, his contention for not giving him opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses is not correct.
12. All know that Federal Service Tribunal is an augustus Institution and its Members and staff are legally bound to discharge the justice according to law. Any Member or its staff found to be corrupt, must be given exemplary punishment so that in future no one who is concerned with this augustus Institution, should dare to be corrupt and be hindrance in discharging of justice. In the instant case the appellant has been found guilty of corruption and misconduct, therefore, he cannot deserve any leniency, in the interest of justice.
13. In the above circumstances, we are constrained not to accept the appeal of the appellant alongwith prayer and it is hereby rejected, with no order as to costs.