Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ARSHAD ALI TABSSUM VS Respondent: REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHOREHonorable Justice Muhammad Ameer BhattiSyed Ijaz Qutab,Mian Manzoor Hussain and Dawood Ahmad
2015 P L C (C.S.) 166
[Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal]
Before Justice Muhammad Farrukh Irfan Khan, Chairman, Justices Abdus Sattar Asghar and Muhammad Ameer Bhatti, Members
ARSHAD ALI TABSSUM
Versus
REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE and others
Service Appeal No.3 of 2009, heard on 30th May, 2014.
(a) Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991)---
----S. 5---Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S.10---Termination of service during probation period---Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate---Charge of aggressive attitude and inappropriate behaviour---Authority conducted an inquiry on a complaint, wherein appellant partially accepted the allegations---Complainant submitted his affidavit wherein he affirmed on oath the contents of the complaint, however, subsequently he forgave the appellant unconditionally---Appellant had not countered the statement as well as affidavit of complainant---Effect---Contention of the appellant was that once the Authority had decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the Authority had no legal right to alter the already adopted procedure, (termination from service), therefore, the act of the Authority in adopting another option without concluding the inquiry proceedings was unwarranted especially when the termination constituted a stigma---Plea of the authority was that the appellant had made confession of the incident and under S.10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 the Authority had powers to pass termination order of a probationer without assigning any reason---Validity---Contention was devoid of any legal force in circumstances of the present case---Authority had first decided to hold the inquiry and that inquiry reached its logical conclusion when it was brought to the notice of the Inquiry Officer that parties had entered into a compromise and this fact had neither been challenged nor objected to by the appellant at any stage of the proceedings---Appellant despite recording of examination-in-chief in his presence had failed to avail the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, which amounted to accepting the allegations narrated in the statement and affidavit submitted by the complainant---Appellant in his written reply although denied the allegations, but affidavit and statement of complainant recorded by the Inquiry Officer not countered by the appellant were sufficient to conclude that an un-acceptable act had taken place and the same were sufficient to disqualify the appellant to retain the office of the judicial officer lest it would cause indiscipline in the entire ranks of the subordinate judiciary---Authority after receiving the report along with all the documents from the Inquiry Officer instead of removing the appellant with a stigma, preferred to use the power vested in it under S.10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which was most appropriate way to deal with the situation emerged due to the rash, negligent and abominable act of the appellant---Appellant's act irrespective of the circumstances existing at the time of incident, was unbecoming of a judicial officer, rather an embarrassment to the entire judiciary---Authority had exercised the powers vested in consonance with the law as envisaged in Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and no illegality or irregularity had been committed---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
(b) Administration of justice---
----Judicial system to dispense justice---Requirements---For judicial system to dispense justice in a befitting manner, it was essential to select persons having, inter alia, excellent character, superior caliber, mellow disposition, ability to control temper, meritorious record etc.---Judicial officers should not be impulsive, spiteful, vindictive, capricious, corrupt, covetous, greedy etc.
Syed Ijaz Qutab for Appellant.
Mian Manzoor Hussain and Dawood Ahmad, Assistant Registrar (Confidential-I) for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 30th May, 2014.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J/Member.--- This appeal under section 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Act, 1991 is directed against the impugned notification dated 6-5-2009, whereby the services of the appellant were terminated by the competent authority while exercising its powers under section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The representation filed by appellant against the said notification/order was also rejected vide order dated 19-6-2009.
2. The precise facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that being a probationer judicial officer, appellant was performing his duties at Kasur. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Kasur forwarded a complaint lodged by the Superintendent of District and Sessions Judge, Kasur, wherein he alleged that the appellant had slapped him and pulled out a pistol from his waist-belt. On this information, the learned District Judge was directed to hold inquiry by the competent authority. The appellant was allowed to file reply by the learned District Judge/Inquiry Officer, wherein he admitted the incidence with a justification but denied the allegation of beating the complainant and keeping a revolver with him. During inquiry proceedings, the complainant submitted his affidavit wherein he on oath affirmed contents of the complaint. However, he forgave the appellant unconditionally. On the basis of this affidavit, the learned Inquiry Officer after recording the statement (examination in chief) of the complainant, submitted a report to the authority along with documents referred above with an opinion that as complainant had forgiven the appellant, there was no need of further probe. The authority vide order dated 5-6-2009, terminated the services of the appellant. The representation filed by the appellant against the said order was also rejected on 19-6-2009 by the Administration Committee, hence this appeal.
3. The precise contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that once the authority had decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the authority had no legal right to alter the already adopted procedure. Hence the act of the authority in adopting another option without concluding the inquiry proceedings was unwarranted. The other submission is that the termination constitutes a stigma, therefore, completion of the inquiry was essential.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submits that after making confession of the incident continuation of the inquiry proceedings would have been an exercise in futility. Therefore, it was the authority exercising the powers vested in it under section 10 of the law ibid passed the termination order against probationer without assigning any reason. That the order impugned does not stigmatize the appellant and the authority has exercised the power within the parameters prescribed by law, hence no illegality has been committed by the authority subsequently endorsed by the Administration Committee while rejecting the representation of the appellant.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
6. For a judicial system to dispense justice in a befitting manner, it is essential to select persons having, inter alia, excellent character, superior caliber, mellow disposition, ability to control temper, meritorious record etc. They should not be impulsive, spiteful, vindictive, capricious, corrupt, covetous, greedy, etc.
7. The act done by the appellant irrespective of the circumstances existing at the time of incident, is unbecoming of a judicial officer, rather an embarrassment to the entire judiciary. The judicial officer is expected not to loose his temper under any circumstance, whereas in the present case the appellant not only slapped but also pulled out a revolver from his waist-belt, meaning thereby he always kept a revolver with him, which also shows his aggressive attitude and inappropriate behavior unbecoming of a judicial officer. Section 10 of the law ibid has been framed keeping in view situations like the present one, so that regular inquiry or stigmatization of such probationers be dispensed with by termination simplicitor.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the authority once adopted a procedure for holding the inquiry regarding the incident, the same could not be changed without completing the first, is devoid of any legal force in the circumstances of the present case. Even otherwise, the authority first decided to hold the inquiry and that inquiry reached its logical conclusion when it was brought to the notice of the inquiry officer that parties had entered into a compromise and this fact has neither been challenged nor objected to by the appellant at any stage of the proceedings. It is also noteworthy that despite recording of examination-in-chief in his presence, he failed to avail the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, which amounts to accepting whatever has been narrated in the statement and affidavit submitted by the complainant. The aforesaid state of affairs reflects that the incident did take place and the appellant committed whatever complainant alleged. Although in his written reply, he denied the allegation but affidavit and statement of complainant recorded by the inquiry officer (not countered) are sufficient to conclude that an un-acceptable act had taken place. Thus, the circumstances explained above, were sufficient to disqualify the appellant to retain the office of the Judicial Officer or lest it would cause indiscipline in the entire ranks of the subordinate judiciary. Therefore, after receiving the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer/District Judge along with all the documents, the authority instead of removing the appellant with a stigma, preferred to use the power vested in it under Section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which was in our opinion the most appropriate way to deal with the situation which had emerged due to the rash, negligent and abominable act of the appellant.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, we are convinced that the authority has exercised the authority vested in consonance with the law as envisaged in Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and no illegality or irregularity has been committed. Thus, this appeal has no merits and is dismissed accordingly.
SA/8/PST Appeal dismissed.