' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been filed seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 6-1- 2000 passed by Balochistan (Subordinate Judiciary) Service Tribunal, Quetta.
2. Qari Ahmed Jan, the petitioner herein, was proceeded against under Balochistan Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1992 for the following charge:-- "CHARGE-SHEET.
' You, Qari Ahmed Jan, Qazi Phalawan at Khuzdar (under suspension) having been suspended with the approval of "AUTHORITY" upon receipt of reports of malpractices and corruption in a large number of cases and the undersigned having been appointed as "AUTHORISED OFFICER" serve you with this charge-sheet on the following grounds:--
(1) That you while performing your judicial functions as Qazi Jhalawan at Khuzdar passed as many as 28 stay orders in a single day without giving notice to the Government aid without determining whether you had jurisdiction or not;
(2) That such 'stay orders were passed in a mechanical manner with extraneous consideration and reasons reflecting mala fide on your part;
(3) That you are known to be "CORRUPT" which is prejudicial to good order or service discipline and unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman;
(4) That you are inefficient and are guilty of gross neligence.
' You are, therefore, hereby called upon to submit your reply within fourteen days to the Enquiry Officer Mr. Abdul Qadir Mengal, District and Sessions Judge, Khuzdar, from the date of receipt of this communication.
' You are further informed that if you wish to produce evidence in support of your defence, you may indicate the same in your reply to Enquiry Officer".
3. The petitioner in his written reply submitted to the charge-sheet denied the charges. The District and Sessions Judge, Khuzdar, who was appointed as Inquiry Officer of the petitioner sent a notice to him for joining the inquiry but the petitioner, before the commencement of inquiry, proceeded on medical leave and despite repeated notices sent to him by the Inquiry Officer he did not join the inquiry. Consequently, the Inquiry Officer on the basis of the relevant judicial record concluded the inquiry and having found the petitioner guilty of the charges, submitted the report to the authorized officer. The petitioner was given final show-cause notice proposing the penalty of dismissal from service and the competent authority after providing him personal hearing and having considered the matter in the light of recommendations made by the authorized officer, dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 24-6-1997. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Balochistan (Subordinate Judiciary) Service Tribunal consisting of two learned Judges of the High Court and the learned Tribunal having perused the judicial record which was used as evidence in support of the charges, dismissed the appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition has contended firstly that the Inquiry Officer while showing undue haste concluded the inquiry in absence of the petitioner who was on medical leave and in consequence thereto a serious prejudice was caused to him in his defence.
Secondly, there was no evidence of corruption against the petitioner and mere legal defect in the judicial orders, if any, passed by him would not be the proof of corruption or persistent reputation of being corrupt and that in absence of any other evidence direct or circumstantial, no such presumption could be raised. Thirdly the competent authority without providing personal hearing to the petitioner and considering the material with independent mind, passed the final order by imposing the major penalty of dismissal from service. Fourthly, it is evident on record that the petitioner was not dealt with fairly under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and was condemned unheard.
5. The learned tribunal having made the detail scrutiny of the record, came to the conclusion that the act of the petitioner of passing interim order in 28 cases of similar nature in one day without notice, restraining the authorities in the concerned Government departments from effecting recovery of the public dues from defaulters and also issuing the directions that the applicants in the cases in question should not be declared defaulters till the next date of hearing, was not bona fide. The said cases were filed by the prospective candidates in the coming local bodies election seeking temporary removal of their disqualification incurred by them for non-payment of public dues, through the process of Court and the petitioner knowingly by passing the interim order in incompetent suits, extended undue favour to the petitioners/applicants in the said suits to become candidates in the election and thus virtually suspended the operation of the statutes under which they could be declared defaulters of public dues. The Tribunal also noticed that in the majority of said cases, a prohibitory order was issued on miscellaneous applications without the proper suit and that the petitioner, even did not bother to consider the question of competency of the suits/applications in question and the scope of his, jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate such matters. The interim order were passed in all the cases in a mechanical manner without giving notice to the concerned departments and bothering for the requirement of the existence of the essential elements for grant of such a relief and more-over all the cases were adjourned for the different dates after the election. The petitioner in the written reply submitted to the charge-sheet pleaded that he being of the opinion that the cases in question were of ordinary nature granted interim relief as prayed for in the interest of justice and issued notice for the longer dates in good faith with the consideration of providing sufficient time to the concerned departments to arrange their representation in an effective manner. The petitioner while pleading his bona fide submitted that he passed such orders in the suits in question due to the lack of knowledge and sufficient experience. The learned Tribunal however, held that the charge of corruption against the petitioner was not proved but in the extraordinary manner in which he acted, a general impression of bad reputation would be created about him and it would be a strong circumstance in proof of the charge of persistent reputation of being corrupt.
6. We having heard the learned counsel-for the petitioner at length and gone through the record with his assistance, have come to the conclusion that no exception can be taken to the view of Tribunal in the given facts. The District and Sessions Judge, Khuzdar, having made thorough probe into the matter with the help of judicial record, submitted report and the authorized officer, who was a Judge of the High Court, in the light of inquiry report, after going through the record, having found himself satisfied with the correctness of the charge of misconduct, recommended dismissal of the petitioner from service. The learned Chief Justice of High Court of Balochistan also after considering the material on record in his capacity as competent authority, passed the final order.
"Misconduct" has been defined in section 2(f) of Balochistan Civil Servants (E&D) Rules 1992 as under:-- "Misconduct" means conduct prejuaicial to good order or service or service discipline or contrary to the Balochistan Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979 or unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman and includes any act on the part of a civil servant to bring or attempt to bring political or other outside influence directly or indirectly to bear on the Government or the Minister or any Government Officer in respect of any matter relating to the appointment, promotion, transfer, punishment, retirement or other conditions of service of a civil servant;"
7. In a case of regular inquiry, the authorized officer and the Inquiry Officer are required to follow the procedure provided under rule 6 and 7 of the Balochistan Civil Servants E&D Rules, 1992 and authorized officer on receipt of inquiry report, is required to inform the accused in writing of the proposed action to be taken with supply of the ground for taking such action and on completion of procedural requirements, if proposes to impose a penalty, shall forward the record alongwith the explanation of the accused and his own recommendation to the competent authority for appropriate orders. In the present case, proceedings against the petitioner were initiated for the charge of misconduct on the ground of inefficiency and of persistent reputation of being corrupt.
The perusal of record would show that there was sufficient material in support of charge in the nature of order passed by the petitioner in an extraordinary manner in the civil suits and the miscellaneous applications without notice to the opposite parties. The explanation given by the petitioner in his reply to the charge-sheet that he passed the interim orders for want of legal knowledge and experience, itself would be a strong ground to proceed against him for inefficiency.
The petitioner as a judicial officer, was holding a very sacred office as custodian of rights of the people and being required to be extra vigilant in the judicial matters, was not supposed to pass such orders against the policy of law without hearing the opposite party. The failure of a Judicial Officer to observe the procedural requirement and passing of the orders in utter disregard of law, would lead to a legitimate inference that either such orders were passed for some extraneous consideration or in complete ignorance of law and in both the cases the petitioner would become disentitled to hold the judicial post. This is correct that there is no direct evidence in proof of the charge against the petitioner but the manner in which he exercised the jurisdiction would itself be a sufficient proof of his being not fair and independent in the judicial affairs and consequently his conduct would be that of unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. The discharge of judicial functions and proceedings in departure to the procedure laid down by law not only is unfair to the parties before the Court and norms of justice but is also prejudicial to the judicial system. It is the duty of a Judicial Officer to maintain the image and dignity of judiciary so that the high expectations of the people from judiciary should not be damaged by his conduct and work. The holder of a Judicial Office must be extra careful, honest and straightforward and should not act and behave in a manner which may lower the image of the judiciary in the estimation of people and create doubt in the minds of a common person regarding the integrity and fairness of the Judicial Officer in his private and public life. The Judicial Offices being very sensitive, the degree of vigilance of a person holding such an office should be much more to that of any other person in the Society. The non- appearance of the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer by proceeding on medical leave without having any serious ailment, would also be an evidence of his bad conduct. In presence of the judicial record maintained by the petitioner himself in the cases in question, no other evidence, oral or documentary, was required in proof of the charge, therefore, the conclusion of inquiry without participation of the petitioner has caused no prejudice to him on merits. In any case, the wilful non- participation of the petitioner in the inquiry would not provide him a ground to contend that he was condemned unheard. We having examined the matter, find that verdict given by the Tribunal against the petitioner through the impugned judgment was unexceptional.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this petition having no substance is dismissed. Leave is refused.