BEFORE THE SINDH
SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY SERVICE TRIBUNAL, HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Service Appeal No.12 of 2015
Present
Mr.
Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi
JUDGMENT
Date of Hearings : 30.11.2019 & 25.01.2020
Date of Judgment : 25.01.2020
Appellant : Muhammad
Ismail Meo in person
Respondent : Mr.
Ali Safdar Depar, Assistant
Advocate General Sindh
NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J. (Chairman)-This judgment will dispose of Service
Appeal No. 12 of 2015 against order dated 13.08.2015, whereby appellant has been dismissed from service.
2. Brief facts necessary for decision of this Appeal are that appellant
Muhammad Ismail Meo was appointed as Civil Judge on 24.04.1994.
He served as Civil Judge in various Districts. ACRs for the period from 1996,
1997, 1998, 1999, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 were adverse
against the appellant. The Appellant filed representation dated 14.11.2000 for
expunction of adverse remarks for the period from 15.09.1997 to 31.12.1997 and
01.01.1998 to 31.12.1998 and representation dated 03.02.2001 for expunction of
the ACR for the period from August 1996 to December 1996 and 01.01.1999 to 05.05.1999
for expunction which were dismissed by the Honourable Chief Justice vide order
dated 29.10.2001. According to record, he had not filed any representation for
expunction of adverse remarks in the ACRs for the period from 2004 to 2010.
Show cause notice dated 17.06.2013 was issued to
appellant on the basis of consistent reputation of being corrupt. The appellant
filed reply to the show cause notice on 13.07.2013. Honourable Authorized
Officer heard him on 07.03.2015.
3. Appellant was issued Final show cause notice on 25.05.2015 under
Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Sindh Civil Servants
(Efficiency & Disciplinary) Rules, 1973 for imposing major penalty of
dismissal from service. Appellant submitted reply dated 08.06.2015. Authorized
Officer provided an opportunity of hearing to the appellant on 18.06.2015, when
appellant moved an application for compulsory retirement. However, Authorized
Officer, after hearing appellant on 18.07.2015 recommended major penalty of
dismissal from service.
4. In pursuance of order dated
18.07.2015, Final show cause notice dated 06.07.2015 was issued to the
appellant by the Honourable Chief Justice. The appellant filed reply to the
Final Show cause notice. The Honourable Chief Justice after hearing the
appellant accepted the recommendation of Hon’ble
Authorized Officer vide order dated 13.08.2015 and imposed the major penalty of
dismissal from service for the following reasons:
“Mr.
Muhammad Ismail Meo, Civil Judge & Judicial
Magistrate was served with the Show Cause Notice under rule 5(3) of the Sindh
Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, on account of
persistent reputation of being an inefficient and corrupt officer as enumerated
from his Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) right from the year 1996 to
2010, wherein he had been called upon to show cause as to why one of the
penalties prescribed under Rule 4(1) of the aforementioned Rules may not be
imposed upon him. In response thereof, the Judicial Officer furnished his
detailed reply. He was also awarded an opportunity of personal hearing on
07.03.2015. The Hon’ble Authorized Officer, after
hearing the Officer, scrutinizing his Performance Evaluation Reports and
keeping in view the adverse reports of various District Judges as to his
incompetence and persistently corrupt, arrived at the conclusion that the
charges leveled against the officer stand established and direct issuance of
Final Show Cause Notice under the provisions of Rule 4(1)(b)(iv)
of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. The
Officer was thereafter served with the Final Show Cause Notice, which was duly
replied. In response to the Final Show Cause Notice, the Judicial Officer was
also awarded an opportunity of personal hearing, wherein the Officer opted that
instead of dismissing him from service he may be compulsory retired. The Hon’ble Authorized Officer, after hearing the officer and
going through his service record, recommended imposition of major penalty of
dismissal from service vide his order dated 18.06.2015.
2. Based on the recommendations of the Hon’ble Authorized Officer, the Judicial Officer was served
with the Final Show Cause Notice, reply thereof was furnished by him mentioning
the same stance as taken before the Hon’ble Authorized officer. He was also offered an
opportunity of personal hearing on 01.08.2015.
3. Mr. Muhammad Ismail Meo,
Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate was given an opportunity of personal
hearing. The Judicial officer states that the action proposed by the Hon’ble Authorized Officer, recommending his dismissal from
service, is not according to prescribed law and contrary to principle of
natural justice. He further states that law does not provide imposition of
major penalty on the basis of continuous adverse remarks in Annual Confidential
Reports. Reliance has been placed on 1996 SCMR 850. He also submits that out of
24 District & Sessions Judges, only 07 have questioned his integrity and
rests of the reports are satisfactory. It is further submitted that proposed
action, on the face of it, is illegal and unlawful in view of the fact that
neither any inquiry was conducted nor he has been given an opportunity to
cross-examine those Officers, who have awarded adverse remarks to him. Reliance
has been placed on 2007 SCMR 1726 and 2009 SCMR 605. The officer has also
submitted that now he has attained the age of 56 years and at this stage if the
proposed action is taken, he and his entire family shall seriously suffer. He,
therefore, prays for mercy and states that instead of dismissing him from
service, he may be compulsory retired.
4. The officer has been reported as
inefficient and corrupt having doubtful integrity by the several District &
Sessions Judges in their respective reports. The service record of the Judicial
Officer also reflects that he is incompetent and corrupt officer having
doubtful integrity. A Judicial officer or any public servant by the very nature
of his office is expected to be honest and no leniency should be given to those
who bring bad reputation to the institution. I am of the view that the order
passed by the Hon’ble Authorized Officer is legal and
factually correct. I am also in agreement with the Hon’ble
Authorized Officer that in the circumstances of the case, a penalty of
dismissal from service would be the most appropriate course. Accordingly, I
accept the recommendation of the Hon’ble Authorized
Officer and impose major penalty of “dismissal
from service” as provided in Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of
the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 with
immediate effect.
5. Above dismissal order from service was communicated to the
appellant. The appellant filed review application dated 09.09.2015, it was
heard and dismissed vide order dated 18.12.2015. The order is reproduced as
under:
“Heard
the delinquent officer at length. He says that he has accepted the verdict but
since he has 22 years of service, therefore, the dismissal may be converted in
the Compulsory Retirement as he is facing financial difficulties. I have
minutely examined his service record and the adverse entries as to his integrity
and competence and despite considering the difficulties pleaded by the
delinquent officer I am not able to persuade myself to convert the verdict of
dismissal into Compulsory Retirement. The officer, who has exploited the sacred
office and abused his position, does not deserve any sympathy. Review
therefore, is dismissed.”
Hence,
the appellant has filed instant Service Appeal.
6. Mr. Meo submits that during pendency of
disciplinary proceedings, he had submitted an application for voluntary
retirement before Honourable Authorized Officer, but the same was not accepted.
Thereafter, he moved another application for compulsory retirement, which was
also not considered. Mr. Meo further submits that he
presses this appeal for only converting dismissal from service to compulsory retirement.
Appellant submits that adverse entries in his ACRs for the year 2011 were
converted into fit for promotion by Honourable Chief Justice on 30.05.2013 and
dismissal of his service on the basis of adverse ACRs was not justified.
Lastly, he has submitted that he has served 22 years and attained the age of
superannuation, major penalty of the dismissal of the service may be converted
to the compulsory retirement on humanitarian grounds. In support of his
submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by this Tribunal
in Service Appeal No.08/2007 dated 30.11.2019 & Service Appeal No. 01/2013
dated 16.04.2016.
7. Mr. Ali Safdar
Depar, Assistant Advocate General Sindh controverted
the contentions as canvased by the appellant and submitted that appellant has
not been able to establish malice or bias or prejudice against any reporting
officer or countersigning officer. It is argued that no controversial facts or
questions were involved for holding of the regular inquiry. It is contended
that there was sufficient material against the appellant in the shape of 12 adverse
ACRs to dispense with the regular inquiry. Lastly, argued that more than five District
& Sessions Judges recorded adverse remarks against the appellant. As
regards to the contention of Mr. Meo that his
dismissal may be converted to the compulsory retirement, learned Asstt. A.G submits that request of appellant for conversion
has already been considered by Honourable Chief Justice in Review/Appeal and it
has been turned down with the observation that officer has exploited the sacred
office and abused his position, he does not deserve any sympathy. In support of
his submissions learned Assistant A.G has relied upon the case reported as
Muhammad Yahya Khan Kulachi
vs. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore (2011 SCMR 1381). Learned A.A.G.
opposed the appeal.
8. We have carefully heard appellant in person and learned Assistant
Advocate General Sindh and perused the relevant record.
9. Appellant mainly contended that his adverse remarks for the
year 2011 were expunged by Honourable Chief Justice, inspite of that show cause notice
dated 17.06.2013 was issued to him and the same was unwarranted. Appellant has
further argued that he has attained the age of superannuation, major penalty
imposed upon him of dismissal from service may be converted to the compulsory
retirement. Record reflects that appellant served for 22 years, 12 adverse
remarks were recorded in his ACRs. More than five District & Sessions
Judges recorded adverse remarks in his ACRs, as reflected from the order dated 19.05.2015
passed by Honourable Authorized Officer. As regards, the question of the
dismissal of his service on the basis if consistent reputation of
being corrupt is
concerned, Mr. Meo vehemently contended that it was a
serious matter and it should not have been finally disposed of without holding
a regular inquiry into the charge of corruption. Appellant submitted that
adverse ACRs were recorded by District and Sessions Judges with mala fides.
Question, whether any major punishment could be imposed upon any civil servant
without holding inquiry would depend upon the facts of each case. Authorized
Officer is empowered to dispense with inquiry but he is required to pass order
in writing to inform the accused of the action proposed to be taken in regard
to him and grounds of action and to give him reasonable opportunity of showing
cause against action proposed as held in the case of GHULAM MUSTAFA SHAHZAD
versus LAHORE HIGH COURT through Registrar and others (2007 SCMR 1786),
relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
“Having
examined the case of the petitioner from every angle and given our anxious
thought to the submissions made at the bar, we are of the considered view that
the Officer Authorized/Authority are fully empowered to opt whether to hold a
regular enquiry or not depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The case in hand having been fairly and equitably dealt with by the High Court
as well as the Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court.”
10. In the case of Mst. SAMINA NAZEER
versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (W) KHANEWAL and others (2004 SCMR 290) it is
held that competent authority could dispense with holding of regular inquiry if
allegations leveled against the civil servant had been proved on the basis of
documentary evidence. Relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
“4. We have carefully examined the
contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner. The judgment impugned has been
perused and record examined. The learned Service Tribunal after having gone
through the entire record has concluded with cogent reasoning that the
petitioner’s name was not included in the merit list of selected candidates
pertaining to Markiz Burewala
and besides that her transfer order and joining report were also fake and
fabricated. The factum of fraud and forgery being question of fact has been
determined by the Department on the basis of relevant record, affirmed by the
learned Service Tribunal after having gone through the entire record, hardly
warrants any interference. We are not persuaded to agree with the learned
Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that in absence of regular
inquiry the services of petitioner could not have been terminated for the
reason that the Competent Authority can dispense with holding of such inquiry
under rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules,
1975. The allegations leveled against the petitioner have been proved on the
basis of documentary evidence and therefore, any regular inquiry was not
necessary.”
11. In the case of Muhammad Aslam, Ex-Deputy
Director (Audit) District Govt. Lahore Region, Lahore versus Auditor-General of
Pakistan, Islamabad (2013 SCMR 1904), it is held as under:-
“8. The counsel for the appellant in the
first place has contended that no regular inquiry was conducted in the case of
the appellant and he was removed from service after issuance of show cause
notice. The appellant has not disputed the factum of entering into plea
bargain, which was documented as a matter of record. In such like cases where
the documents on the basis of which departmental proceedings have been
initiated are not in dispute, the competent authority can dispense with the
regular inquiry, as no material is required to be collected for proceeding
against the delinquent officer. Likewise, the appellant cannot take a plea that
he was deprived of opportunity to rebut the charge when the documents on the
basis of which departmental proceedings are initiated against the appellant
have not been denied.”
12. It may not be out of context to point out that appellant was
duly informed that competent Authority had decided to dispense with regular inquiry on the basis of his PER right from
August 1996 till the year 2010. In the show cause notice the relevant
portions from his PER in respect of his integrity, competence etc. were
mentioned. The same are reproduced as under:
1.
That in PER of August 1996 to December 1996, in Part VI(b) Report Officer had recorded “Not yet fit for promotion”. Your representation for expunction of
adverse remarks was rejected.
2.
That in PER of 15.09.1997 to 31.12.1997, in Part III(3) and (9) your
integrity and judgment and in part IV(1) to (3) and (5) to (7) your proficiency
in job were recorded as “Below Average”.
In part V Reporting officer recorded as “His
integrity is below board”. “He has
been verbally advised to improve his image and to improve his disposal in
writing”. In Part VI(a) Overall Grading was
recorded as “meets bare minimum standards (below
average)”. In Part VI(b) Reporting Officer had
recorded “Not yet fit for promotion”. Your
Representation for expunction of adverse remarks was rejected.
3.
That in PER of 01.01.1998 to 31.12.1998, in Part III(3) and (9) your integrity and judgment was recorded as “Below Average”. In part IV(1) to (3) and (5) to (7) your proficiency in job was
recorded as “Below Average”. In Part
V Reporting officer had recorded as “His integrity is below board”. “He has
been verbally advised to improve his image and to improve his disposal in writing.”
In part VI(a) overall Grading was recorded as “meets
bare minimum standards (below average)”.
In Part VI(b) reporting Officer had recorded “Not yet fit for promotion”. Your Representation
for expunction of adverse remarks was rejected.
4.
That in PER of 01.01.1999 to 05.05.1999, in Part III (3) and (9)
your integrity and judgment was recorded as “Below Average”. In part IV(1) to (3) and
(5) to (7) your proficiency in job were recorded as “Below Average”. In Part V Reporting officer recorded as “His integrity is below normal”. “Counseling-He
was being advised, during monthly scrutiny of returns, he was being advised in
writing to improve.” In part VI(a) overall Grading
was recorded as “meets bare minimum standards (below average)”. In Part VI(b) reporting
Officer had recorded “Not yet fit for
promotion”. Your Representation for expunction of adverse remarks was
rejected.
5.
That in PER 06.04.2004 to 13.12.2004, in Part V Report officer
recorded “There were some complaints against him”. He started improving in result of counseling.
6.
That in PER of 11.07.2005 to 31.12.2005, in Part V Reporting
Officer recorded “He should improve his
image”. As to fitness for promotion Countersigning Officer had recorded “Not yet fit for promotion.
7.
That in PER of 26.04.2006 to 31.12.2006, in Part III your
integrity recorded as “Below Average”.
In part IV Reporting Officer recorded“ Capable of writing
qualitative judgments but he was not fair in conclusion”. “There were reports
of his being corrupt.” “Counseling was made frequently but there was no encouraging
results.” As to fitness for promotion Reporting Officer had recorded “Unlikely to progress further.”
8.
That in PER of 27.07.2007 to 20.11.2007, in Part V Countersigning
Officer had recorded “In view of his
past performance, this ACR in which he is rated above average is exaggerated.” Countersigning
Officer had also recorded “Not yet fit
for promotion.”
9.
That in PER of 01.01.2008 to 25.06.2008, in Part III your
integrity was recorded as “Below
Average”. In Part IV Reporting officer had recorded “He was not enjoying good reputation”. “His integrity is under cloud.” As
to fitness for promotion reporting officer had recorded “Not yet fit for promotion.”
10.
That in PER of 25.06.2008 to 31.12.2008, as to fitness for
promotion Countersigning officer had recorded “Not yet fit for promotion”. In Part V Countersigning officer had
recorded [Exaggerated] In view of past performance.
11.
That in PER of 01.01.2009 to 17.10.2009, in Part III your integrity Behavior in
Court and Discipline were recorded as “Below
Average”. In part IV Reporting officer had recorded as “He does not enjoy good reputation during report period. There were
also complaints against him about misuse of powers and issuing unlawful directions
to local police orally.” “During monthly meetings he was informed about his
reputation and so also misbehavior with his staff.” As to fitness for
promotion Reporting officer had recorded “Not yet fit for promotion.”
12.
That in PER of 01.01.2010 to 08.04.2010, in Part III your
integrity was recorded as “Below
Average”. In part IV Reporting Officer had recorded“ He was working satisfactory but bears bad reputation”. “No compliant
received. He bears bad reputation and is a person of doubtful integrity.” As
to fitness for promotion, countersigning officer had recorded “Not yet fit for promotion”. In Part V
Countersigning Officer had recorded “A
person not enjoying good reputation cannot be fit for promotion.”
13.
That in PER of 08.04.2010 to 28.09.2010, in Part IV Reporting
Officer had recorded “He is not hard
worker in connection of judicial work. During the period under report the oral
complaints received from the members of the Bar Association regarding
corruptions. Therefore, he is reputed as corrupt judicial officer.” “He is not
enjoying good reputation as judicial officer and is corrupt.” The
Countersigning officer in Part III had recorded your integrity as Below Average and as to fitness for
promotion recorded Not yet fit for promotion.
14.
That in PER of 01.10.2010 to 31.12.2010 as to fitness for
promotion Reporting Officer had recorded “Not
yet fit for promotion.”
15.
That DPC in the years 1998, 2000, 2003, 2008, 2013 and 2014 did
not find you fit for promotion on account of adverse remarks as to the
integrity.
13. These adverse ACRs were written by seven different District
& Sessions Judges, which showed reputation of Mr. Meo
as corrupt officer since joining of service. Such allegations against him were
made known to him and he was afforded reasonable opportunity of personal
hearing by the competent Authority. We are satisfied that Authority before
passing impugned order of dismissal from his service had duly complied with
provision of law and Rules of natural justice. Thus, appellant cannot claim
that he was condemned unheard. Adverse ACRs on the basis of which departmental
proceedings were initiated against the appellant are not in dispute. Competent
Authority has rightly dispensed with regular inquiry as no material was
required to be collected for proceeding against the appellant.
14. All
the civil servants are bound to be honest, having unblemished integrity yet the
Judicial Officers are supposed to excel in this trait of character in view of
the sacred and sensitive nature of their duties and owing to the pivotal
position that justice occupies in Islam as held in the case of Ch. Shabbir
Hussain v. Registrar Lahore High Court, Lahore and others (PLD 2004 SC 191). Relevant
portion is reproduced as under:-
“5. The contentions
raised by the learned counsel for the parties have received our anxious
consideration. However, before proceeding to determine the questions involved
in these appeals we deem it necessary to observe that although all the civil
servants are bound to be honest having unblemished integrity, the Judicial
Officers are supposed to excel in this trait of character in view of the sacred
and sensitive nature of their duties and the pivotal position which justice
occupies in Islam according to the following verse of the Holy Qur'an:‑‑
"O' You who
believe, the maintainers of justice, bearers of witness for Allah's sake though
it may be against your ownselves or your parents or
near relations, be he rich or poor, Allah is most
competent to deal with them both, therefore, do not follow your low desires
lest you deviate, and if you swerve or turn aside then Allah is aware of what
you do." (Sura 4, Verse 135).
Islam also enjoins
that those who perform the functions of Judges must not only possess profound
knowledge and deep insight but also be men or integrity and capable of holding
the scales of justice even under all circumstances. We, therefore, cannot help
remarking that Judicial Officers are expected to guard their reputation
jealously and the Reporting Officer/Countersigning Officers are obliged to
assess their conduct after careful consideration and without being led away by
any prejudice or bias.”
15. We have minutely examined the ACRs of the
Appellant. The appellant could not satisfy us about any
mala fide or ill-will on the part of different District and Sessions Judges,
who had recorded adverse ACRs/remarks against him.
16. Honourable Chief Justice had extensively
examined the service record of appellant rightly came to conclusion as referred
above.
17. As regards to the submission of the
appellant that his major penalty of the dismissal from service may be converted
to the compulsory retirement, such submission made by the appellant has already
been considered by the Honourable Chief Justice/ Authority and review petition
has been dismissed vide order dated 18.12.2015 for the following reasons:
“Mr.
Muhammad Ismail Meo, Civil Judge present in person
Heard the delinquent officer at length. He says that he
has accepted the verdict but since he has 22 years of service, therefore, the
dismissal may be converted in the Compulsory Retirement as he is facing
financial difficulties. I have minutely examined his service record and the
adverse entries as to his integrity and competence and despite considering the
difficulties pleaded by the delinquent officer I am not able to persuade myself
to convert the verdict of dismissal into Compulsory Retirement. The officer,
who has exploited the sacred office and abused his position, does not deserve
any sympathy. Review therefore is dismissed.”
18. We have carefully examined service
record of appellant. There are 12 adverse entries as to his integrity and
competence. Honourable Chief Justice for the sound reasons has rightly observed
that appellant exploited sacred office as such, he does not deserve any
sympathy. In the view of aforesaid facts and legal position, no case for
interference is made out.
19. For the above stated reasons, this
Service Appeal merits no consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed.
20. These are the reasons for our short order
dated 25.01.2020.
CHAIRMAN
MEMBER
-