' Civil Petition No,371-K of 2002 came up for hearing on 28-3-2002 before Full Bench of this Court wherein petitioner while making his submission stated that his Constitutional Petition No,D-1062 of 1994 (Feroze Akbar Khan v. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence and others) was fixed on 14-1-2002 before learned Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court sitting single who dismissed the same by short order on the same day but the reasons of the written order were given on 16-2-2002 which order on perusal showed that it was signed by two learned Judges of the Sindh High Court when in fact his Constitutional petition was heard only by learned Chief Justice as per cause list dated 14-1-2002. We found that the submissions made by petitioner in person were prima facie correct on perusal of impugned judgment of the Sindh High Court and the cause list dated 14-1- 2002, therefore, in order to ascertain the truth of the submissions made by the petitioner, we ordered that report be called for from the Registrar of the High Court as to whether petitioner was heard by Division Bench as reflected in the judgment. The matter again came up before the Full Bench of this Court on 15-5-2002 when it was found that order to call for the report from the Registrar though communicated to the High Court on 6-4-2002 and followed by reminder, dated 4th May, 2002 which was delivered in the office of the Registrar on 7-5-2002, no compliance to the process issued by this Court was made by the Registrar of the Sindh High Court. In the circumstances on the said date i.e, 15-5-2002 this Court passed order directing the Registrar of the High Court of Sindh to appear in person before this Court on 16-5-2002 alongwith the requisite report and show cause as to why action for wilful disobedience of the lawful orders of this Court be not initiated against him. On 16-5-2002 Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Leghari, Registrar, High Court of Sindh, Karachi appeared in person and submitted his reply to the notice dated 15-5-2002 but as he had not filed the photocopies in the shape of paper books for perusal of the Bench as prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, he was directed to file the same for perusal of the Members of the Bench in the shape of paper books with copy to the petitioner as well within five days positively and the matter was ordered to be re-listed in the next session when the Registrar was also directed to appear in person. The petition was re-listed on 26-6-2002 when the Registrar of the Sindh High Court was present while the petitioner was absent, therefore, the petition was adjourned to 28-6- 2002 when the petitioner appeared and stated that he has not received the additional copies filed by the Registrar, Sindh High Court, therefore office was directed to supply copies to him and the matter was adjourned to 1-7-2002. On 1-7-2002 the petitioner and the Registrar Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Leghari were heard at length.
2. We have disposed of the petition by separate order, however, this order will dispose of the matter with regard to show-cause notice dated 15-5-2002 issued to the Registrar, High Court of Sindh Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Leghari as to why action for wilful disobedience of the lawful order of this Court be not taken against him.
3. We have heard the Registrar of the Sindh High Court in person and perused his reply to the show-cause notice issued to him.
4. The Registrar, in his reply to show-cause notice has stated that his reply be considered as unconditional apology for non-compliance of order dated 28-3-2002 communicated on 6-4-2002 when the said order was received by him on 11-4-2002 and was marked to the concerned Assistant Registrar in routine together with other mail and he put his signature on the list containing the inward numbers without going through the contents of the mail. He further stated that the said letter of this Court from the concerned, Branch reached him on 9-5-2002 when he immediately asked Assistant Registrar (Writ) to explain the delay in processing the matter. On 10th May, 2002 he discussed the matter with the learned Chief Justice, the Senior Member of the Bench in connection with the query in the order passed by this Court but as the author of the impugned judgment was Mushir Alam, J., therefore, learned Chief Justice directed him to discuss the matter with learned Judge with whom he could not discuss on 10th May, 2002, however the cause list was examined by him wherein he found that the said Constitutional petition alongwith Miscellanoue Application No,5888 of 2001 was fixed before Single Bench of learned Chief Justice. He has also stated that from 11-5-2002 to 14-5-2002 he was on casual leave and discussed the matter on his return on 15-5- 2002 with Mushir Alam, J. Who advised him to seek few days' time from this Court so that report could be submitted as to whether petition was heard by Division Bench. He in the end submitted his apology and regretted inconvenience caused to this Court and further stated that he cannot disobey the order of this Court and the lapse on his part being not wilful be excused.
5. We have minutely gone through the record and the delivery book of the mail of this Court sent to the Registrar, Sindh High Court in respect of Civil Petition No,371-K of 2002. We find that the first process in respect of the order dated 28-3-2002 of this Court was sent as per entry dated 8-4- 2002 in the delivery book, which was delivered in the office of Registrar of the High Court of Sindh on 10-4-2002 and the reminder for compliance of order dated 28-3-2002 of this Court was sent on 6- 5-2002 which was delivered on 7-5-2002 in the office of Registrar, High Court of Sindh, Karachi. The Registrar in his reply has submitted that he received the first process of this Court on 11-4-2002 in respect of the order dated 28-3-2002 passed by this Court when the same was delivered in his office on 10-4-2002. He has not stated as to when the reminder for the compliance of order dated 28-3-2002, the process of which was sent by office of this Court on 6-5-2002 and delivered as per entry dated 7-5-2002, was received by him. Further he has stated in his reply that from the Bench the matter reached before him on 9-5-2002. It would appear that the matter which the Registrar has stated to have reached him was the reminder of the process of this Court sent to him on 6-5- 2002 received by his office on 7-5-2002. He has not stated anything as to what happened of the process sent to him for the compliance of order dated 28-3-2002 of this Court issued by the office on 6-4-2002 and admittedly received by him on 11-4-2002 when as per delivery book of this Court it was received on 10-4-2002. The Registrar has tried to give justification/explanation for not making compliance of the process of this Court in respect of the order dated 28-3-2002 of this Court received by him admittedly on 11-4-2002 having marked it in routine to the Branch and its subsequent reminder dated 6-5-2002 received by Its office on 7-5-2002 by stating that he could not seek instructions from the ',earned Chief Justice and Mushir Alam, J. In respect of the matter and that he proceeded on casual leave from 11-5-2002 to 14-5-2002 to attend his personal matters at his village, therefore, orders of this Court could neither be responded nor complied with since 11- 4-2002 when he himself admitted to have received, till he was issued reminder on 6-5-2002 received by his office on 7-5-2002.
6. The Registrar has attempted to give justification, as stated above, in his reply to the suo motu show-cause notice issued by this Court to him for the wilful disobedience of the lawful order of this Court, therefore, it could not be said that he has tendered unqualified apology, considering also that the reply which has been filed by him is neither on oath nor he has filed any affidavit corroborating his defence and justification. The Registrar being a responsible Judicial Officer of the grade of District Judge has treated the order of highest Court of the country in a routine manner as stated by him in his reply. It was his bounden duty to have cared and taken notice of the process issued to him for the compliance of the order received by him on 11-4-2002. Every mail which is sent for the perusal of the Registrar is not disposed of in a casual manner. This trend of non- compliance and disobedience of lawful judicial orders and ignoring and treating the same lightly, taking it for granted is on increase by the officials performing administrative duties, considering that this Court being the apex Court of the country, the Registrar being a responsible Judicial Officer should have been more vigilant and careful in making compliance of the order of the Court rather than treating the said order of this Court in a routine and casual manner and then proceeding on leave (which was also not stated to be of emergency nature) without making any compliance though sufficient time was at his disposal and he awakened from his sleep after the receipt of reminder which showed his disrespect and disregard to the orders of this Court. This conduct on the part of the Registrar is nothing but wilful disobedience of the lawful order passed by this Court which amounted to gross contempt on his part and his so-called unconditional apology with justification cannot be termed to be genuine and sincere but mechanical one which would not be sufficient itself to purge the contemner's non-compliance and disobedience amounting to contempt. On one hand he has stated to accept his so-called unconditional apology while on the other hand he has given justification/explanation for disobedience of not making compliance of the order of this Court which itself would be in contradiction.
7. In the circumstances the reply is neither bona fide no any sincere unconditional apology has been tendered for the wrong done which has impaired the dignity and authority of this Court which being very much important for the supremacy and majesty of the law. It may also be observed that the said disobedience and non-compliance of the order of this Court on the part of the Registrar would amount to interference with the administration of justice for which no sincere regret or unconditional apology has been tendered, on the contrary justification of it has been reiterated and further neither statement nor an affidavit has been made or filed that in future he would not repeat the same would fall within the mischief of contempt. We are unable to see any feature of his apology which could be termed to be an expression of complete repentance with statement that it would not be repeated hereinafter. A layman can justify his non-compliance being ignorant of law but bring a Judicial Officer occupying such a high administrative office cannot be expected to disrespect, disregard, disobey, ignore and take it for granted the orders of the highest Court of the Country. This is high time that such acts and omissions on the part of the administrative officers of the country should be taken note of and curbed so that such acts and omissions with regard to disobedience of lawful order should not be repeated and that there should not be interference with the administration of justice, therefore, the action taken should be deterrent against such person/official class who being back bone of the administrative machinery of the entire country should not be allowed to show disregard, disobedience, contempt and take it for granted the lawful orders of the Court. We are of the opinion that explanation/justification is an afterthought act and after it is found that disobedience and non-compliance has taken place, the Registrar tendered insincere and so-called unconditional apology to save himself from being punished in accordance with law without any genuine repentance and assurance of avoidance of such conduct in future. This Court has time and again held that the Courts would not accept an apology of the person who did not admit that he has committed tfie said act of disobedience and contempt considering that unqualified apology would mean that it should be admission as to commission of the contempt and when apology is tendered in order to escape the punishment with justification and without same being sincere, it would not purge the contempt made on his part. Besides it may be observed that even if there is sincere unconditional apology showing repentance of his behaviour/conduct it would only be a mitigating circumstance for the purpose of awarding lesser punishment to the contemner. It is bounded duty of this Court as enshrined in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to uphold the dignity/decorum and authority of Court and to see that the process/direction/order issued are enforced throughout the country but in case of disobedience and disregard shown on the part of any person/authority, this Court would not be reluctant to act in accordance with contempt law to punish the wrongdoer the contemner which proceedings being sui generis in nature.
7. We, in the circumstances, hold that the Registrar of the High Court of Sindh Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Leghari being responsible officer is found guilty of contempt of Court as he has committed disobedience of the lawful order of this Court, therefore he is punished and convicted under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act and read with Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and sentenced to simple imprisonment till rising of Court and fine of Rs,3,000 or in default to undergo 3 days' simple imprisonment.
Further Order.
In the above matter notices for the announcement of the order were issued by the Office for today but Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Leghari, Registrar of the High Court of Sindh who was required to appear before the Court did not appear. However, Mr. Tehsin Ahmad Bhatti, Incharge Registrar of the High Court of Sindh has appeared. He states that Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Leghari, Registrar, High Court of Sindh is on vacation leave. Judgment is announced in open Court in presence of Mr. Tehsin Ahmad Bhatti, Incharge Registrar, High Court of Sindh today. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Leghari, the contemner is required to comply with the orders of the Court and in failure thereof, bailable warrants in the sum of Rs,10,000 be issued against him to appear and comply with the orders of the Court and in case of default, he be remanded to custody to serve out the senence.