BEFORE THE SINDH SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY SERVICE TRIBUNAL, HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Service Appeal No. 07 of 2016

Service Appeal No. 01 of 2017

Present:

Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto, Chairman

Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi, Member

JUDGMENT

Date of Hearing : 27.01.2018

Date of Judgment : 24.02.2018

Appellant : Mian Fayyaz Rabbani in person.

Respondent : Mr. Ziauddin Junejo, Asstt: Advocate General Sindh.

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J. (Chairman)- This judgment will disposed of Service Appeal No. 07/2016 against adverse remarks and Service Appeal No. 01/2017 against order dated 08.10.2016 whereby appellant has been dismissed from service. Both appeals are inter-related, common question of facts and law is involved.

2. Through Service Appeal No. 07/2016, appellant Mian Fayyaz Rabbani has called in question order dated 30.01.2016, whereby his representation against adverse remarks recorded in his ACRs for the period from 11.07.2005 to 31.12.2005, 23.04.2006 to 31.12.2006, 01.01.2007 to 22.05.2007, 24.05.2007 to 22.11.2007, January 2008 to 24.06.2008, 25.06.2008 to 22.12.2008 and 01.01.2009 to 16.10.2009 was rejected by the Honourable Chief Justice/Authority, same was communicated to him vide High Court letter dated 04.03.2016. Order dated 30.01.2016 passed by Chief Justice is reproduced as under:

“Heard. The Judicial Officer has sought expunction of adverse remarks reported in the ACR for the period of 11.07.2005 to 31.12.2005, 23.04.2006 to 31.12.2006, 01.01.2007 to 22.05.2007, 24.05.2007 to 22.11.2007, January 2008 to 24^th June 2008, 25.06.2008 to 22.12.2008 and 01.01.2009 to 16.10.2009.

With regard to the adverse remarks in the ACR for the period of 11.07.2005 to 31.12.2005, the grievance of the Judicial Officer was with regard to the rating at Serial Nos. 4,5,8 and 9 in Part-III, adverse remarks of Reporting Officer as to performance, integrity and pen picture contained in Part-IV and overall below average rating in Part-IV(6) and in Part-IV(7) wherein he was declared to be ‘Not fit for promotion’. With regard to the adverse remarks in the ACR for the period of 23.04.2006 to 31.12.2006 and 01.01.2007 to 22.05.2007, the grievance of the Judicial Officer was with regard to “integrity” as “below average”, remarks of Reporting officer as to reputation of Judicial Officer and fitness for promotion in Part-IV wherein he was declared to be “Not fit for promotion”. Judicial Officer asserted that face sheets of both ACRs were not filed by him so also his photographs are also not affixed on the ACRs. With regard to the adverse remarks in the ACR for the period of 24.05.2007 to 22.11.2007 and January 2008 to 24.06.2008 the grievance of the Judicial Officer was that though the Reporting Officer reported him as good Judicial officer, however, the Countersigning officer in Part-IV declared him as “Not fit for promotion”. With regard to the adverse remarks in the ACR for the period of 25.06.2008 to 22.12.2008, the grievance of the Judicial Officer was with regard to rating as to ‘Integrity’ as “Poor” and Professional Competence (Quality) as “below average” in Part-III, adverse remarks of Reporting Officer as to integrity and fitness for promotion in Part-IV. With regard to the adverse remarks in the ACR for the period of 01.01.2009 to 16.10.2009 the grievance of Judicial Officer was with regard to rating as to “integrity”. “Professional Competence” and “Administrative ability” as “below average” adverse remarks of Reporting Officer as to integrity and fit ness for promotion in Part-IV. The main contention of the Judicial Officer was that during the period from 1996 when he was inducted in service till 2004 there were no allegation of corruption against him and keeping in view his past record adverse remarks may be expunged.

Scrutiny of the record of this Judicial Officer would reflect that throughout he has earned adverse reports with regard to his competence and integrity though his earlier representation with regard to ACRs from 08.04.1996 to 28.07.1996, from 01.01.1997 to 31.12.1997 and from 01.01.1998 to 10.04.1998 was accepted vide Order dated 18.03.2003 on the basis of his previous ACRs for a year or so adverse remarks as to competence were converted from “below average” to “average” but the observation with regard to his integrity were maintained. It appear that this Judicial Officer even after rejection of his representation and maintaining the adverse reports with regard to his integrity did not learn the lesson and throughout his career has earned negative reports.

I have also enquired about the integrity of this Judicial Officer from my brothers on the Bench, specially, those who have come from the District judiciary, none spoke well about him specially his integrity. No case is made out for expunction of the adverse remarks and his representation stands rejected.”

3. Mian Fayyaz Rabbani being dissatisfied with the above order of Honourable Chief Justice filed Service Appeal No. 07/2016. During pendency of the said Appeal, he was served with final show-cause notice dated 18.03.2016 that his reputation was that of a persistent corrupt Judicial Officer. Regular inquiry was dispensed with. On the basis of adverse ACRs, he was dismissed from service under Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. He filed Service Appeal No.01/2017 against his dismissal from service.

4. Brief facts of the Service Appeal No. 01/2017 are that Mr. Fayyaz Rabbani was directly appointed as Senior Civil Judge/ Assistant Sessions Judge on 08.04.1996. He served in various Districts under so many District & Sessions Judges. There were complaints against him from the litigants public and Advocates with regard to his integrity. He had persistent reputation of being corrupt. On 13.02.2016, learned Authorized Officer issued show cause notice to Mr. Rabbani as to why major penalty in terms of Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 may not be recommended to the competent Authority. Mr. Rabbani furnished reply to show-cause notice. Learned Senior Pusine Judge found it unsatisfactory vide order dated 12.08.2016 and recommended for imposition of major penalty as under:

“In the circumstances, I am of the considered view that retention of a person with such service record would be gravely harmful to public interest and award of any other punishment except “dismissal from service” would be inappropriate. Accordingly, I recommend imposition of major penalty of “dismissal from service” as prescribed in Rule 4(b)(iv) of E&D Rules, 1973, upon the Judicial Officer.”

5. Record reflects that Mr. Rabbani was served with final show-cause Notice dated 18.08.2016 under the provisions of Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. Mr. Rabbani furnished reply, wherein he denied the allegations leveled against him and raised plea that he had already filed appeal against his adverse ACRs. After providing an opportunity of hearing to Mr. Rabbani, the Honourable Chief Justice vide impugned order dated 08.10.2016 accepted the recommendation of Authorized Officer of “Dismissal from Service” of the delinquent officer as prescribed under Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, operative part of the order reads as under:

“Record reflects that Show Cause Notice was issued to the Judicial Officer on the basis of adverse remarks earned for the year 1999 to 2009. It is an admitted position that on his filing representation against adverse remarks recorded in the ACRs for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 the representation was disposed off by converting below average rating in Part IV for the year 1997 and 1998 into average, however, the adverse remarks with regard to his integrity and fitness for promotion were maintained, thereafter again in the ACRs for the period 29.05.1999 to 20.10.1999 his integrity and overall grading were reported as below average and he failed to file any representation against such adverse remarks. In the ACR for the period 04.09.2000 to 31.12.2000, counseling was provided by the Reporting Officer to improve his working and public image. It appears from record that Judicial Officer despite decision of his representations and counseling, did not mend his ways and again in the ACRs for the year 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 earned adverse remarks and his Representation for expunction of the said remarks were rejected vide Order dated 30,.01.2016. It also appears from the record that in the ACRs for the period of 01.01.2010 to 10.04.2010 integrity of the Judicial Officer was reported as ‘Poor’, so also in the ACR for the period 01.01.2015 to 26.08.2015 his integrity was recorded as “below average”, though both the said periods are not the subject matter of the show cause notice but reflects that after rejection of his representations and maintaining the adverse reports with regard to his integrity did not learn the lesson and throughout his career has earned negative reports.

I have heard the delinquent officer and perused the record as well as order passed by the Authorized Officer, I am fully convinced that the charges against the Judicial Officer that his reputation is that of a persistently corrupt Judicial Officer stand established. On the other hand, the Judicial Officer has totally failed to give any plausible explanation that as to why so many District Judges while writing his Personal Evaluation Reports have questioned his integrity. In the circumstances, I accept the recommendation of Authorized Officer of “Dismissal from Service” of the delinquent officer as prescribed under Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. “

6. The appellant Mian Fayyaz Rabbani has raised the following contentions:-

i. The adverse remarks recorded in ACRs of the appellant were not supported by any material.

ii. The adverse remarks having been recorded without any verbal or written counseling same were liable to be expunged.

iii. There was considerable delay in recording and communicating the adverse remarks and no reason has been advanced for delay.

iv. The reporting as well as countersigning officers were obliged to consider the ACRs objectively and not subjectively.

v. ACRs of the appellant were not written according to mandatory instructions.

vi. That District & Sessions Judges recorded adverse ACRs against the appellant for the mala fide reasons.

vii. That in the adverse ACRs places of the posting of the appellant have not been mentioned and tampering was alleged in the ACRs.

viii. That no regular inquiry was conducted though controversial facts were involved.

7. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the cases reported as (1993 SCMR 1440), (1996 SCMR 802), (2000 SCMR 645) & (2007 SCMR 1726).

8. Mr. Ziauddin Junejo, Assistant Advocate General Sindh entered appearance and controverted the view point as canvased by the appellant and submitted that the delay in recording and communication of the adverse remarks is immaterial, the instructions about counseling was also directory not mandatory. He has further submitted that appellant has not been able to establish malice or bias or prejudice against any reporting officer or countersigning officer. Lastly, it is argued that no controversial facts or questions were involved for holding of the regular inquiry. There was sufficient material against the appellant regarding his integrity in the shape of adverse ACRs to dispense with the regular inquiry.

9. We have carefully heard appellant in person and learned Assistant Advocate General Sindh and perused the relevant record. The point of delay in communication of the ACRs in respect of judicial officers was considered by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Shabbir Hussain vs. Registrar, Lahore High Court Lahore (2004 PLC (C.S) 236), wherein it was held that delay in recording adverse remarks does not affect their efficacy or legality. It was observed as under:

“7. The first question for determination, therefore, is whether delay in writing ACRs and conveying the adverse remarks can vitiate the adverse remarks. The question is not res integral. A matter on this subject had come up before a Full Bench of this Court for consideration and it was held that Instruction No.2 of the Establishment Manuai Volume-I, which is in pari materia with Instruction No.2 of the Punjab Esta Code Vol.I, is directory in nature. The case is reported as Government of the Punjab and another v. Ehsanul Haq Sethi (PLD, 1986 SC 684). The following excerpt from that judgment may be reproduced hereunder advantageously:--

"As for the time schedule, Instruction No.2 provides that it should be initiated within the prescribed time, that is, the first week of January and should relate to a calendar year. The purpose is two-fold; firstly, that subsequent events may not consciously or unconsciously contribute in the formation of the opinion in respect of the reporting year; and, secondly that the cases for promotions and appointments cannot be properly judged in the absence of up-to-date Annual Confidential Reports, which results in frustration amongst the Government servants.

However, while construing this Instruction, there cannot be in every case a rigid compliance of the time schedule; and for this, the reason is not far to seek as there may be cases where while judging the cases of Government servants for promotion and appointment there may not be up-to-date Annual Confidential Reports in which case the missing reports are to be called for a fuller consideration of the merits. (Reference in this connection may be made to Rule 2.30-A of the Guide to. Performance, Evaluation, O & M Division, Public Administration Research Centre, Islamabad, which provides for the rendering of missing character rolls or their re-construction). There may be other instances where because of the larger number of Government servants and their widely dispersed postings, it may not be possible to complete their Annual Confidential Reports within the time schedule for many justifiable reasons. Yet there might be other cases where for some technical reason, the Annual Confidential Reports cannot be initiated at the proper time. Such instances are not exhaustive of the cases where time schedule cannot be rigidly followed. Designedly, therefore, no penal consequence was postulated for contravening the time schedule. Accordingly, this Instruction is directory in nature."

The question was determined again in the case of Syed Tathir Hussain Sherazi v. The Governor of the Punjab (1990 SCMR 1510) and it was held that-delay in recording adverse remarks does not affect their efficacy or legality. The dictum was reiterated in Lahore High Court Lahore through Registrar v. K. M. Sohel (2001 PLC (C.S.) 1253) as well as an unreported judgment of this Court titled Ch. Muhammad Wakil v. Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Tribunal Lahore High Court (CP No. 1170 of 1998) decided on 20-10-1999. In view of this settled legal position and well known pre-occupation of the District and Sessions Judges and Judges of the High Court with ever increasing judicial work we feel no hesitation in holding that delay in initiating ACRs of some of the appellants and conveying adverse remarks to them is immaterial and cannot obliterate the adverse remarks in question. The contention that the time schedule has been prescribed so that remarks are based on the performance of the officer during the relevant year and not any subsequent even stands repelled in view of the observations made in the case of Ehsanul Haq Sethi.

10. Thus, relying upon the above dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that the contention raised by the appellant was untenable as such, the same is repelled.

11. It is evidently clear that in the present case, the appellant was given full opportunity of making representation and presenting his case and view points before the competent Authority who after giving him a chance of hearing passed the impugned orders. As such mere delay in sending the adverse remarks would not make them immaterial or questionable. Appellant has further argued that all the adverse ACRs were signed by the countersigning Authority on the same date. It is also not illegality and contention is without any legal force. It is further contended that there was tempering with the ACRs of the appellant. Such allegation has not been substantiated with particularity. Allegation of malafide requires proof of a high order owing to its serious nature and the burden of proof lies heavily on the person who makes it as held in the case of Ch. Shabbir Hussain and others vs. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others (PLD 2004 S.C 191), relevant portion is reproduced as under:

“The allegation of mala fide can be easily made than proved. It is by now firmly settled that the allegation of mala fide requires proof of a high order owing to its serious nature and the burden of proof lies heavily on the person who makes it. In this context the observations made in Federation of Pakistan v. Saeed Ahmed Khan (PLD 1974 SC 151) may be reproduced hereunder:;‑‑

"Mala fides is one of the most difficult things to prove and the onus is entirely' upon the person alleging mala fides to establish it, because, there is, to start with, a presumption of regularity with regard to all official acts, and until that presumption is rebutted, the action cannot be challenged merely upon a vague allegation of mala fides. As has been pointed out by this Court in the case of Government of West Pakistan v. Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri (PLD 1969 SC 14), mala fides must be pleaded with particularity, and once one kind of mala fide is alleged, no one should be allowed to adduce proof of any other kind of mala fides nor should any enquiry be launched upon merely on the basis of vague and indefinite allegations, nor should the person alleging mala fides be allowed a roving enquiry into the files of the Government for the purposes of fishing out some kind of a case."

12. The contention of appellant that countersigning Authority was bound to record reasons for recording the adverse remarks against the appellant is without any legal force. It is observed that countersigning Authority/Chief Justice always remains cognizant with the performance of Judicial Officer being his appellate and revisional authority against judicial orders passed by him from time to time. Therefore, he had a better chance to assess the performance as well as conduct of Judicial Officer which he can undertake independently. District Judges and Honourable Chief Justice are the only officers, who can accurately assess the work and conduct of subordinate Judge serving under them. They are best judges of his work, conduct and character. The basis of their opinion can be very extensive depending on their own observation, general reputation and such other material which may have been brought to their notice. Opinion is formed by the superior officers on the basis of conglomeration of events too minute to be noticed individually and recorded separately. The total impact of such events, however, brings into focus a clear image of the persons before them. The superior officers cannot therefore, be asked to produce material on which they based their opinion.

13. Close scrutiny of service record of Mr. Rabbani would reflect that throughout his service, he has earned adverse reports with regard to his competence and integrity. Judicial officer, even after rejection of his representation with regard to his integrity, could not improve himself. Honourable Chief Justice apart of his adverse remarks inquired about integrity of this judicial officer from his brother Judges on the Bench, specially those who have come from District Judiciary in High Court, none spoke well about him, regarding his integrity. We have no reason to take the different view.

14. For the aforesaid facts and reasons Service Appeal No. 07/2016 is without merit, which is accordingly dismissed.

Service Appeal No.01 of 2017

15. As regards, the question of the dismissal of his service on the charge of adverse ACRs/corruption is concerned, Mr. Rabbani 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 submission 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.”

16. 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.”

17. 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.”

18. 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 adverse ACRs for the period from 11.07.2005 to 31.12.2005, 23.04.2006 to 31.12.2006, 01.01.2007 to 22.05.2007, 24.05.2007 to 22.11.2007, January 2008 to 24.06.2008, 25.06.2008 to 22.12.2008 and 01.01.2009 to 16.10.2009. Those adverse ACRs were written by seven different District & Sessions Judges, which showed reputation of Mr. Rabbani as corrupt officer. 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.

19. 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 Shabbir Hussain v. Registrar Lahore High Court (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.”

20. We have minutely examined the ACRs of the Appellant. With regard to the adverse remarks in the ACR for the period of 11.07.2005 to 31.12.2005, the grievance of the Judicial Officer was with regard to the rating at Serial Nos. 4,5,8 and 9 in Part-III, adverse remarks of Reporting Officer as to performance, integrity and pen picture contained in Part-IV and overall below average rating in Part-IV(6) and in Part-IV(7) wherein he was declared to be ‘Not fit for promotion’. With regard to the adverse remarks in the ACR for the period of 23.04.2006 to 31.12.2006 and 01.01.2007 to 22.05.2007, the grievance of the Judicial Officer was with regard to “integrity” as “below average”, remarks of Reporting officer as to reputation of Judicial Officer and fitness for promotion in Part-IV wherein he was declared to be “Not fit for promotion”. Judicial Officer asserted that face sheets of both ACRs were not filed by him so also his photographs are also not affixed on the ACRs. With regard to the adverse remarks in the ACR for the period of 24.05.2007 to 22.11.2007 and January 2008 to 24.06.2008 the grievance of the Judicial Officer was that though the Reporting Officer reported him as good Judicial officer, however, the Countersigning officer in Part-IV declared him as “Not fit for promotion”. With regard to the adverse remarks in the ACR for the period of 25.06.2008 to 22.12.2008, the grievance of the Judicial Officer was with regard to rating as to ‘Integrity’ as “Poor” and Professional Competence (Quality) as “below average” in Part-III, adverse remarks of Reporting Officer as to integrity and fitness for promotion in Part-IV. With regard to the adverse remarks in the ACR for the period of 01.01.2009 to 16.10.2009 the grievance of Judicial Officer was with regard to rating as to “integrity”. “Professional Competence” and “Administrative ability” as “below average” adverse remarks of Reporting Officer as to integrity and fitness for promotion in Part-IV. Those adverse ACRs were written by seven different District & Sessions Judges, for the period from 11.07.2005 to 31.12.2005, 23.04.2006 to 31.12.2006, 01.01.2007 to 22.05.2007, 24.05.2007 to 22.11.2007, January 2008 to 24.06.2008, 25.06.2008 to 22.12.2008 and 01.01.2009 to 16.10.2009, which showed reputation of Mr. Rabbani as corrupt officer since the joining of service. The appellant could not satisfy us about any mala fide on the part of seven different District and Sessions Judges, who had recorded adverse ACRs/remarks against him.

20. Chief Justice has extensively examined the service record of appellant and perused order passed by the Authorized Officer, rightly came to conclusion as under:

“I have heard the delinquent officer and perused the record as well as order passed by the Authorized Officer, I am fully convinced that the charges against the Judicial Officer that his reputation is that of a persistently corrupt Judicial Officer stand established. On the other hand, the Judicial Officer has totally failed to give any plausible explanation that as to why so many District Judges while writing his Personal Evaluation Reports have questioned his integrity. In the circumstances, I accept the recommendation of Authorized Officer of “Dismissal from Service” of the delinquent officer as prescribed under Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. “

21. We have examined the case of the appellant from every angle and have given our anxious thought to the submissions made by him. We have also examined ACRs of appellant for the period from 11.07.2005 to 31.12.2005, 23.04.2006 to 31.12.2006, 01.01.2007 to 22.05.2007, 24.05.2007 to 22.11.2007, January 2008 to 24.06.2008, 25.06.2008 to 22.12.2008 and 01.01.2009 to 16.10.2009. In presence of solid documentary evidence in shape of Adverse ACRs, the procedure of regular enquiry had been justifiably dispensed with by the competent authorities. In view of aforesaid facts and legal position no case for interference is made out. We find no merit in Service Appeal No. 01/2017, the same is dismissed.

CHAIRMAN

MEMBER