Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Ch. SHABBIR HUSSAIN VS Respondent: REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHOREHonorable Justice QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQKhawaja. Ibrar Majal, Malik Muhammad Qayyum & Sh. Zameer Hussain,REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE& Malik Azam Rasool
2004 P L C (C
2004 P L C (C.S.) 236
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Qazi Muhammad Farooq, Abdul Hameed Dogar and Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, JJ
Ch. SHABBIR HUSSAIN and others
Versus
REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE, and others
Civil Appeal No.8 of 2002 with Criminal Original No.49 of 2002, Civil Appeals Nos.633, 634, 173 of 2002, 1447 of-1998, 1621, 1622 of 1999, 336 to 338 of 2002, 1004, 1005, 1187, 1188 of 2002 and 13 of 2000, decided on 4th December, 2003.
(On appeal from the judgments dated 4-10-2001, 7-3-2002, 13-9-2001, 16-5-1997, 5-3-1999, 5-10-2000, 1-11-2001 and 13-12-1999 passed by the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore in Service Appeals Nos.3 of 2001, 46 of 1999, 90 of 2001, 17 of 2001, 4 of 1995, 7 and 8 of 1997, 3 of 2000, 54 , 32, 29, 30, 27 and 28 of 2001 and 10 of 1999 respectively).
(a) Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunals Act (XII of 1991).-----
----S.5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Adverse entry in Annual Confidential Report---Effect---Contention raised by the Judicial Officer was that adverse entry in his Annual Confidential Report was not based upon any material against him and it was further contented that the representation against the adverse remarks was heard by seven Judges of High Court constituting the Administration Committee, while appeal was heard by three Judges, who could not have decided against the decision of the Administration Committee, therefore, the appeal lost its significance---Judicial officer also contended that the Annual Confidential Report pertaining to the perm from 1-1-1999 to 31-12-1999 was completed in September, 2000 and adverse remarks were communicated to him after a delay of more than 1 year and thus the adverse entry could not be taken into consideration---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the 'contentions of the Judicial Officer.
Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and .2 others v. Muhammad Saeed Zafar 1999 SCMR 1587; Ch. Saeed Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and 2 othersl996 SCMR 256; Rana Abdul Ghaffar Khan v. Tile Punjab Government 1989 SCMR 1238 and Syed Tathir Hussain Shiraai v. The Government of the Punjab and others 1990 SCMR 15.10 ref.
(b) Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunals Act (XII of 1991)---
----S. 5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider whether or not formalities, as laid down by Supreme Court in the case titled Noor Elahi v. Director, Civilian Personnel, reported as 1997 SCMR 1949 were observed.
Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Rana Altaf Majid 1994 SCMR 1348 ref.
(c) Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunals Act (XII of 1991)---
----S.5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)--- Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider whether it was open to Service Tribunal to accept appeal of Judicial Officers relating to adverse remarks recorded by inspection Judge of the High Court/Countersigning Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case; Whether the judgment was in conflict with the guidelines laid down by Supreme Court regarding recording of Annual Confidential Reports in number of reported cases by. the Supreme Court; whether the judgment was in conformity- with the decisions of Supreme Court in cases titled Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Muhammad Saeed Zafar reported as 1999 SCMR 1587 and Ch. Saeed Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and 2 others reported as 1996 SCMR 256 and whether the decision rendered by the Administration Committee comprising of seven Judges of the High Court including the Chief justice was liable to interference by the Tribunal comprising of three Judges of the same Court.
Chief Secretary Government of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Muhammad Saeed Zafar 1999 SCMR 1587; Ch. Saeed Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and 2 others 1996 SCMR 256; Noor. Elahi v. Director, Civilian Personnel 1997 SCMR 1749 and Government of the Punjab and another v. Ehsanul Haq Sethi PLD 1986 SC 684 ref.
(d) Judge---
----Integrity and character of Judicial Officers---Principles---Although all 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---Islam also enjoins that those who perform the function of Judges must not only possess profound knowledge and deep insight but also be men of integrity and capable of holding the scales of justice even under all circumstances---Judicial Officers are expected to guard their reputation jealously and Reporting Officers/.Countersigning Officers are obliged to assess their conduct after careful consideration and. without being led away by any prejudice or bias.
Holy Qur'an: Sura 4, Verse 135 ref.
(e) Establishment Manual---
----Vol. 1, Instruction No.2---Punjab ESTACODE, Vol. I, Instruction No.2---Delay in writing of Annual Confidential Reports and conveying of adverse remarks whether can vitiate the adverse remarks---Such question is not res integra---Instruction No.2 of the Establishment Manual, Vo1.I, which is in pari materia with the Instruction No.2 of Punjab ESTACODE, Vol. I, is directory in nature---In view of pre occupation of District and Sessions Judges and Judges of the High Court with ever increasing of judicial work, delay in initiating Annual Confidential Reports of some of Judicial Officers and conveying adverse remarks to them is immaterial and cannot obliterate the adverse remarks in question.
Syed Tathir Hussain Shirazi v. Governor of the Punjab and others 1990 SCMR 1510; Government of the Punjab and another v. Ehsanul Haq Sethi PLD 1986.SC 684; Ch. Muhammad Wakil v. Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal and 2 others C. P.L.A. No. 1170 of 1998 and Lahore High Court, Lahore through its Registrar v K.M. Sohel 2001 PLC (C.S.) 1253 rel.
(f) Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunals Act (XII of 1991)-----
----S.5---Establishment Manual, Vo1.I, Instruction No.2---Punjab ESTACODE, Vol. I, Instruction No.2---Adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Reports, recording of---Procedure---Contention of Judicial officers was that such entries in their Annual Confidential Reports were not based on tangible evidence---Validity---Evaluation could be termed as objective if it was unambiguous, impartial, unbiased, result of careful consideration and was based on credible information, personal observation of Reporting Officer or Countersigning Officer and reports of the Inspection Judges and it was not necessary that it must be based on tangible material like complaints in writing, resolutions of Bar Associations, transfer applications and assets etc.---Adverse remarks. with regard to integrity of an officer could be made on the basis of his reputation and if the same were required to be supported with tangible material and instances of corruption then there would be no difference between an Annual Confidential Report and Inquiry Report under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules---Adverse remarks in the present cases, were either recorded by Inspection Judges of the High Court as Reporting Officer or endorsed by them as Countersigning Officer and in some cases the Reporting Officers/Countersigning Officers - had scrutinized the work of the Judicial Officers and closely watched their conduct as Inspection Judges, Appellate Authorities and Judicial Heads of the Districts where they were posted, therefore, the adverse remarks were based on credible information, personal observation and the process of inspection---Adverse remarks related to the integrity of the Judicial Officers and were neither vague nor sketchy and there was also nothing on the record to suggest that the integrity and reputation of the Reporting Officers/Countersigning Officers was spot above board and they -had recorded the adverse remarks on, account of bias, prejudice, ill-will or rancour against the Judicial Officers---Subordinate Judiciary. Service Tribunal had rightly dismissed the appeals filed by the Judicial Officers.
Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 2 .others v. Muhammad Saeed Zafar 1999 SCMR 1587; Ch.. Saeed Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and 2 others 1996 SCMR 256; Rana Abdul Ghaffar Khan v. The Punjab Government 1989 SCMR 1238; Syed Tathir Hussain Shirazi v. Governor of the Punjab and others 1990 SCMR 1510; Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Rana Altaf Majid 1994 SCMR 1348; Noor Elahi v. Director of Civilian Personnel, Rear Air Headquarters, Peshawar and 2 .others 1997 SCMR 1749; Government of the Punjab and gnother v. Ehsanul Haq Sethi PLD 1986 SC 684; Aslam Warraich and others v. Secretary, Planning and Development Division 1991 SCMR 2330; Principal, Government College Thana, Malakand v. Mrs. Bilquis Begum 2003 PLC (C.S.) 187; Pakistan Television Corporation v. S. Ahtramullah 1987 SCMR 753; Pakistan v. R.S. Roopchand PLD 1967 SC 47; Kh. Saeedul Hassan v. Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore 1994 PLC (C.S.) 113;' Lahore High Court, Lahore through Registrar v. Muhammad Jahangir Khan Goraya 1999 SCMR 2117; Shaukat Javed Farooqi v. District and Sessions Judge, Lahore and another 1999 SCMR 2141; Muhammad Zafar Qureshi v. Government of the Punjab and 2 others C.P.L:A. No. 1529-L of 1996; Ch. Muhammad Wakil v. Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal and 2 others .C.P.L.A. No.1770 of 1998; Lahore High Court, Lahore through its Registrar v. K.M. Sohel 2001 PLC (C.S.) 1253; Ch. Muhammad Hanif v. Lahore High Court. Lahore C.P.L.A. No.2102-L of 1999; Ghulam Mustafa Shahzad v. Lahore High Court, Lahore through its Registrar C.Ps.L.A. Nos.2780 to 2782-L of 2001; Province of the Punjab v. Sardar Noor Ilahi Khan Leghari 1992 SCMR 1427; Khawaja Saeed-ul Hassan v. Government of the Punjab 1994 SCMR 1815; Sirajuddin Qureshi v. Administration Committee of,Sindh High Court 1985 PLC (C.S.) 704 and F.Q. Matiullah Khan Alizai v. Chief Secretary, Government of N.-W.F.P. 1994 SCMR 722 ref.
(g) Mala fides---
--- Allegation of mala fides---Onus to prove---Such allegation can be easily made than proved---Allegation of. mala fides requires proof of a high order owing to its serious nature and the burden of proof lies heavily on the person who makes it.
Federation of Pakistan. v. Saeed Ahmed Khan PLD 1974 SC 151 rel.
(h) Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunals Act (XII of 1991)-----
----S.5---Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunals ---Composition-- Object---Contention of Judicial Officers was that as the Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal consisted of three Judges of the High Court who were junior to the members of Administration Committee of the High Court, therefore, the Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal could not interfere with the observations of the Administration Committee-- Validity---Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunals are established under Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunals Act, 1991, which is a manifestation of separation of the Judiciary from the Executive and a symbol of independence of judiciary---Mere fact that two appeals before Supreme Court have been filed by High Court through its Registrar against acceptance of the appeals preferred by a Judicial officer was sufficient for holding that composition of the Tribunal was unexceptionable---Contention of the Judicial Officers had no force and was illusory.
(i) Punjab 'Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunals Act (XII of 1991)------
----S.S---Rejection of representations---Scope---Where the representations were rejected by the order based on detailed reasons recorded by the sub-committees constituted by the Administration Committee, such rejection could not be called `a simple ritualistic rejection'.
Aslam Warraich and others v. Secretary, Planning and Development Division 1991 SCMR 2330 distinguished.
(j) Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunals Act (XII of 1991)----
----S.5---Establishment Manual, Vol., I, Instruction No.2---Punjab ESTACODE, Vol. I, Instructions Nos.2 & 6,5---Adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Report---Reputation of Judicial Officer---Contention of the Judicial Officer was that he had mentioned maintaining a car in his declaration of assets---Judicial Officer further contended that the Inspection Judge had recorded the remarks with a delay after his retirement---Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Judicial Officer and expunged the remarks made by the Inspection Judge---Validity---Adverse remarks were made by the Judge of the High Court/Inspection Judge as Countersigning Officer were inviolable and the judgment of the Service Tribunal was not sustainable---Mere fact that the Judicial Officer had mentioned the car being maintained by him in the declaration of assets was not enough for expunction of the remarks---Allegation of bias made by the Judicial Officer against the Countersigning Officer having not been established was unfounded--- Adverse remarks recorded by the Countersigning Officer after his retirement could not be eliminated as Instruction No:65 of Punjab ESTACODE, Vol. I has- provided that the officer proceeding on retirement should be asked to write the requisite Annual Confidential Reports before his retirement---Such instruction was directory and not mandatory---Judgment passed by the Service Tribunal was set aside and' appeal by the Judicial Officer was dismissed.
Ch. Fazal Hussain, Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Shaukat Ali Mehr, Advocates Supreme Court and. M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on- Record (absent) for Appellants (in C.As.8 with Cr.0.49, 633, 634 and 173 of 2002).
Tallat Farooq Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant (in C.A. No. 1447 of 1998).
Malik Muhammad Azam Rasool, . Advocate Supreme Court with Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in C. As. Nos. 1621 and 1622 of 1999).
Ch. Naseer Ahmed Bhutta, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant (in C.As. Nos.336 to 338 of 2002):
Khawaja. Ibrar Majal, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant (in C.As. Nos. 1004 and 1005 of 2002).
Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in C.As. Nos.1187 and 1188; of 2002).
Sh. Zameer Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court with 'M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in C.A. 13 of 2000).
Malik Azam Rasool, Advocate - Supreme Court with Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record and Nazar Hussain, Deputy Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore for Respondents.
Respondent in person (in C.As. Not. 1621 and 1622 of 1999).
Dates of hearing: 6th, 7th, 8th and 10th October, 2003.
JUDGMENT
QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---The appeals, by leave of the Court, being disposed of by this common judgment consist of two sets and involve determination of identical legal points. The first set is comprised of Civil Appeals No.8, 633, 634, 173, 1447, 336, 337, 338, 1004, 1005, 1187 and 1188 of 2002 and 13 of 2000, which have been filed by certain Judicial Officers against the judgments dated 13-12-1999, 4-10-2001, 7-3-2002, 13-9-2001. 16-5-1997, 5-10-2000 and 1-11-2001 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Lahore, hereinafter referred to as to Tribunal, rejecting . their appeals arising from the adverse remarks recorded in their Annual Confidential Reports, hereinafter called the ACRs. The second set consists of Civil Appeals No.1621 and 1622 of 1999 which have been filed by the Lahore High Court through its Registrar against the judgment dated 5-3-1999 of the Tribunal whereby two appeals filed by a Judicial Officer were allowed and the adverse remarks recorded in his two ACRs were expunged.
2. The facts in each appeal are different and put shortly together with leave granting orders are as under:
Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2002
The appellant Chaudhry Shabbir Hussain had joined the Subordinate Judiciary in September, 1988 as a Civil Judge. While posted as Civil Judge Lahore he was communicated, vide letter dated 6-12-2000, the following adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period from 1-1-1999 to 31-12-1999 by the Reporting Officer (District and Sessions Judge Lahore) and endorsed by the Countersigning Officer (a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court) to the, extent of integrity:
PART-V
(a) pen-picture: He did not enjoy good reputation.
(b) Counselling: Counselling upon general reputation was of no use. PART-VI
(b) Fitness for promotion: Not yet fit for promotion.
(c) Integrity: Reported to be corrupt.
PART-VII
REMARKS OF THE COUNTERSIGNING OFFICER:
Views of the District Judge as to integrity are endorsed.
The representation filed by the appellant against the adverse remarks was dismissed by the Administration Committee of the Lahore High Court on 7-6-2001 and his appeal before the Tribunal also met the same fate on 4-10-2001. Leave was granted in the following terms:--
"It is stated that the adverse entry is not based upon any material against him. It is further submitted that the representation against the adverse remarks was heard by seven Judges of the Court constituting the Administration Committee, while appeal was heard by 3 Judges who could not have decided against the decision of the Administration Committee, therefore, the appeal I loses its significance.
It if further submitted that the ACR pertaining to the period from 1-1-1999 to 31-12-1999 was completed in September, 2000 and adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner after a delay of more than 1 year and thus the adverse entry cannot be taken into consideration. In support of his contentions Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court has relied upon judgment reported as 1999 SCMR 1587 Chief Secretary Government of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Muhammad Saeed Zafar, 1996 SCMR 256 Ch. Saeed Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary. Finance Division, Islamabad and 2 others. The judgment reported as 1989 SCMR 1238 Rana Abdul Ghaffar Khan v. The Punjab Government and 1990 SCMR 1510 Syed Tathir Hussain Shirazi v. the Government of the Punjab and others run against the judgment relied by the learned counsel.
For resolving the conflict and for an authoritative pronouncement we grant leave to appeal."
The appellant has also moved Criminal Original No.49 of 2002 with the prayer that the respondents may be proceeded against for contempt of Court as .by declining his promotion on account of the impugned adverse remarks they had violated the order passed by this Court on 16-5-2002 that no further action shall be taken against him.
Civil Appeals No.633 and 634 of 2002:
Through these appeals Rao Muhammad Akbar, Civil Judge, has challenged the judgment dated 7-3-2002 of the Tribunal dismissing his appeals directed against the adverse remarks in his A.C.Rs. for the period from 1-1-1995 to 31-12-1995 and 1-1-1996 to June, 1996. The appellant had joined service in 1988 as a Civil Judge and the following adverse remarks were recorded in his ACR for the period from 1-1-1995 to 31-12-1995 by the Reporting Officer (District and Sessions Judge Faisalabad):--
PART-V
(a) Pen-picture: There were complaints about his integrity. The Officer has recently performed Umra and started using restraint.
PART-VI
(c) Integrity: Reported to be corrupt.
The remarks of the Countersigning Officer (a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court) in PART VII are worded thus:--
"Did not personally receive any complaint about his integrity but since his Reporting Officer has done so, he needs to be closely watched. "
The same Reporting Officer recorded the following adverse remarks in the ACR of. the appellant for the period from 1-1-1996 to June, 1996:--
PART-III
a. Financial responsibility: Below Average.
PART-V
(a) Pen-picture: The officer has having reputation of being corrupt. He has paid no heed to any counseling.
PART-VI
(b) Fitness for promotion: Not yet fit for promotion.
(c) Integrity: Reported to be corrupt.
The ACR was countersigned by the Countersigning Officer (a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court) on 16-8-2001, without any remarks, and the adverse remarks were communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 17-8-2001. The appellant filed a representation which was rejected by the Administration Committee of the Lahore High Court on 2-10-2001 and the appeals arising therefrom were rejected by the Tribunal on 7-3-2002.
Leave was granted pursuant to leave already granted in identical matters.
Civil Appeal No. 173 of 2002:
The appellant Ch. Muhammad Hanif had joined service on 2-1-1984 as a Civil Judge. While he was posted as Civil Judge 1st Class Khanpur, the following adverse remarks Were recorded by the Reporting Officer (District and Sessions Judge Bahawalpur) in his ACR for the period from 29-1-1999 to 31-12-1999:--
PART-II PERSONAL QUALITES
4. Adoptability: Below average.
PART-III ATTITUDES
1. Knowledge of Islam. Below average.
2. Attitude towards Islamic Ideology. Below average.
3. Ability to produce constructive ideas. Below average.
4. Relations with subordinates: Below average.
PART-V
(a) Pen-picture: Did not enjoy good name for integrity. However, he became appreciably cautious towards end of the year. Needs to be kept under strict watch. PART-VI
(b) Fitness for promotion: Not yet fit for promotion.
(c) Integrity: Reported to be corrupt.
The Countersigning Officer remarked that he was an average officer.
The adverse remarks were communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 25-7-2000 and the representation filed by him was turned down on 7-6-2001 by the Administration Committee of the Lahore High Court. The appeal preferred by him before the Tribunal was dismissed on 13-9-2001.
Leave was granted in view of the leave granting orders passed in the connected matters.
Civil Appeal No.1447 of 1998
The appellant Tahir Parvez was appointed as a Civil Judge on 1-4-1978. While he was posted at Lahore, the then District and Sessions Judge Lahore in his capacity as the Reporting Officer recorded the following adverse remarks in his ACR for the period from 1-1-1991 to 31-8-1991: --
PART-V
(A) Pen-picture: Did not enjoy enviable reputation.
PART-VI
(a) Meets bare minimum standard (below average).
(b) Not yet fit for promotion.
(c) Integrity: Reported to be corrupt.
The Countersigning Officer did not record any remark.
The adverse remarks were communicated to the appellant on 18-5-1992, his representation against the same was dismissed by the Administration Committee of the Lahore High Court and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Tribunal on 16-5-1997. Leave was granted to consider whether or not formalities, as laid down in the case reported as Noor Elahi v. Director Civilian Personnel (1997 SCMR 1749) were) observed.
The appellant has reported been promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judge.
Civil Appeals Nos.336, 337 and 338 of 2002
These appeals relate to adverse remarks recorded in the ACRs of the appellant Malik Muhammad Aslam Jawad for the periods from 1-1-1997 to May, 1997, 1-1-1999 to May, 1999 and 29-5-1999 to 31-12-1999.
The appellant had joined service on 31-10-1992 as Additional District and Sessions Judge. The adverse remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer, a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, in his ACR for the period from 1-1-1997 to May, 1997 read as 'under:--'
PART-V
(a) Pen-picture: Does not enjoy good reputation.
PART-VI
(a) Fitness for promotion: Not yet fit for promotion.
(b) Reported to be corrupt.
The adverse remarks in the ACR for the period from: 1-1-1999 to May, 1999 read as under:--
PART-V
(a) Pen-picture: He does not carry good image.
PART-VI(b)
(iii) Not yet fit for promotion.
(c) Integrity: Does not carry good image.
The adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the period from 29-5-1999 to 31-12-1999 read as under:--
PART-VI
(c) Integrity: Reported to be corrupt.
The adverse remarks were duly communicated to the appellant and the representations filed by him against the same were rejected by the Administration Committee of the Lahore High Court and the appeals arising therefrom were dismissed by the Tribunal on 5-10-2000 and 1-11-2001.
Leave was granted on the basis of the leave granting order passed in C. P. No.3484-L of 2001 (Civil Appeals No. 173 of 2002).
Civil Appeals Nos. 1004 and 1005 of 2002
The appellant Khalid Mehmood Cheema had joined the Subordinate Judiciary on 4-11-1979 as a Civil Judge and was promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judge in 1997.…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.