Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SAEEDUL HASSAN, EX-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
1994 P L C (C
1994 P L C (C.S.) 1113
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Shafiur Rahman, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ
Kh. SAEEDUL HASSAN, EX‑ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through the Chief Secretary, Lahore
Civil Appeal No. 156 of 1987, decided on 10th June, 1991.
(From the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 13‑11‑1986 passed in Case No. 668/352 of 1985).
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether civil servant had a right to be heard personally by the competent authority, if that authority was, contrary to the finding of the authority designated for personal hearing, of the view that civil servant was guilty of the charges or some of them entailing his removal/dismissal from service.
(b) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑R. 3‑‑‑Removal of civil servant on ground of having persistent reputation of being corrupt‑‑‑Quantum of evidence in proof of such charge‑‑‑Four Officers whose duty it was to keep an eye on the punctuality, integrity and proper functioning of all judicial officers and Courts in the district were among the witnesses against the civil servant‑‑‑If during the performance of such duty such officers could form an opinion about their colleague (civil servant) it deserved utmost consideration i1aless it was shown to be influenced, biased or motivated‑‑‑Such was not found to be the case‑‑‑To test the soundness of such officers' opinion by reference to writing in the ACR or reporting to the visiting High Court Judge was an unsound test‑‑‑Record or report was to be made when there was tangible concrete case to present and sustain and not on mere reputation‑‑‑Evidence on record thus, established civil servant's persistent reputation of being corrupt.
(c) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑R. 8‑‑‑Designated authority‑‑‑Report prepared by designated authority‑‑ Legal defect‑‑‑Designated officer was required to prepare record of personal hearing of civil servant which did not empower such designated authority to record the finding and decide the matter, or to submit the case for approval of the authority‑‑‑Evaluation standard evolved by designated officer was incorrect and inapplicable to the proceedings‑‑‑Designated Officer's view that in the matter of reputation, reasonable degree of specificity and definitiveness was required was prohibited under the law i.e. Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975.
(d) Civil servant‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑ Domestic inquiry‑‑‑Finding in domestic inquiry should be reasonable and fair i.e. in accordance with the job requirement; the environment in which duties were discharged; the manner in which they were expected to be discharged; and the standard of performance to be attained‑‑‑Such duties differ from service to service, from post to post‑‑‑Designated Officer's finding on such issues besides suffering from jurisdictional error (for he was to prepare only record of personal hearing) was faulty and of no legal effect.
Abid Hasan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate‑General, Punjab and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 10th June, 1991.
JUDGMENT
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution to examine whether the appellant, a civil servant had a right to be heard personally by the competent authority, if that authority was, contrary to the finding of the authority designated for personal hearing, of the view that the appellant was guilty of the charges or some of them entailing his removal/dismissal from service.
2. The appellant was practising at the Bar when‑ on 7‑7‑1977 he was selected and appointed Additional District and Sessions Judge, Multan. He served there up to 1‑10‑1978. Thereafter, he served in Jhang up to 10‑6‑1980 and in Jhelum up to 11‑7‑1982. His last posting was at Rahimyar Khan from 20‑7‑1982 to 6‑12‑1983 when he was suspended from service.
3. The immediate cause of the suspension of the appellant was a demi official letter dated 28‑11‑1983 written by a learned Judge of the High Court who had been specially asked to keep an eye on the work of the Districts where the appellant was posted. The contents of this D.O. letter stand substantially incorporated in the statement of allegations, accompanying the charge‑sheet served on him. They are reproduced hereunder: ‑‑
"(i) The officer has performed functions at various stations Multan, Jhang and Jhelum but has seldom commanded enviable reputation which is hallmark of a judicial officer. He has a persistent reputation of being highly corrupt. I have assessed the situation. In Rahimyar Khan, he has indulged in naked corruption. His vagaries and ignominies have touched new height this time. At the same time, he has his own golden principles inasmuch as he would not accept bribe money without bottles of wine.
He behaved shamelessly in case of abduction FIR No. 31 of 1983 of P.S. Saddar Sadiqabad lodged by Khan Muhammad s/o Haji Ghutta caste Mangria, resident of village Jafarpur, Tehsil Sadiqabad. Pity is that in the bail petition moved by the accused persons, he extracted cash and plants valuing Rs. 1,500 from the complainant and transported the same to Lahore and also accepted illegal gratification from the accused persons. The bail petition was ultimately transferred from his Court. During my stay at Rahimyar Khan, Khan Muhammad had complained in this behalf.
(ii) Khalifa Abdul Rehman, a senior Advocate, Rahimyar Khan has told me that when the stay order of High Court was produced by his client before the Additional Sessions Judge, he became furious and threw away the order at the face of his client and when the Advocate asked him to behave properly, he started abusing his client for having interrupted in his work.
(iii) I may point out that Kh. Saeedul Hassan leads a life which is quite unlike a judicial officer. He visits the houses of his tout Advocates and drinks wine there. He is known to have presided over Court of Session at a time `while being debris' and has been often witnessed by as being under the influence of alcohol/liquor. Khalifa Abdul Rehman, Advocate, Rahimyar Khan, has told me that the officer often keeps wine in his Chamber and drinks there.
I had once summoned him and rendered him admonish and counselling. He assured me‑about his future‑orderly behaviour and good conduct. Despite the solemn vow, the officer has failed' to exhibit amenability to discipline.
(iv) Recently, he has misbehaved with Ch. Muhammad Nasim, Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan. His behaviour and attitude with him has been deplorable. He has written highly objectionable letter to his Sessions Judge. It is a case of insubordination. Kh. Saeedul Hassan's conduct is prejudicial to the good order and service discipline. In short, he is a basically dishonest person. He is corrupt as well as inefficient. He knows no discipline. He has brought bad name to the judiciary. He has neither abandoned ill‑habits nor shown any improvement. My assessment is that he is now incorrigible.
(v) He is inefficient. He does not know the legal sentence to be awarded under section 302, P.P.C., inasmuch as, in more than one case, he under section 302, P.P.C. awarded sentences other than death or imprisonment for life. In a case `State v. Habib and others', Sessions Trial No. 9/79, Multan, the Additional Sessions Judge after recording conviction under section 302/34 sentenced Habib accused to 10 years R.I. and Muhammad Shafi to 4 years' R.I. and the judgment was set aside by the High Court on this illegality alone.
(vi) He is highly inefficient. After having commenced sessions trials, he would not decide for several months. At Rahimyar Khan he did not decide numerous cases for months together. The manner in which he conducts sessions trials speaks volumes.
(vii) The officer is in the habit of adjourning the cases tenditiously and for ulterior motives which provides manifest evidence for buying justice."
4. Additional ground for initiating the punitive proceedings was mentioned in concluding portion of the statement of allegations ‑ as hereunder: ‑‑
"Mr. MA. Rehman, Advocate, Mr. Nazir Ahmad Lar, Advocate, Mr. Fateh Muhammad Khan, Advocate, Rahimyar Khan, Mr. Ghulam Akbar son of Jam Lai caste Khambra, resident of Mauza Nabipur, Tehsil and District Rahimyar Khan, in his application to the honourable Chief Justice and his transfer application before Bahawalpur Bench, Malik Muhammad Shafi son of Mundu Khan r/o Mehajar Colony, Sadiqabad, District Rahimyar Khan and Mr. Inamullah Kadri, Advocate, Rahimyar Khan, have complained to the honourable Chief Justice, Lahore High Court, Lahore, making allegations of corruption and misconduct indulged in by Kh. Saeedul Hassan, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan."
5. The formal charge‑sheet drawn up on the basis of these allegations was as hereunder:
"That while working as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan:
(i) You indulged in corruption and as such you are a corrupt officer.
(ii) You have a persistent reputation of being corrupt.
(iii) That you are an inefficient officer.
(iv) That your conduct is prejudicial to the good order and service discipline inasmuch as you wrote highly objectionable letter to your District and Sessions Judge at Rahimyar Khan.
(v) That you habitually drink wine.
(vi) That when a stay order of the High Court was produced by the client of Khalifa Abdul Rehman, Advocate, Rahimyar Khan, you became furious and threw away the Order of the High Court."
6. While denying the charges the appellant explained the background of it by asserting that a son‑in‑law of the learned Judge was "exploiting the situation and creating terror among the judicial officers who did not to his line". The appellant claimed to have already, and earlier to the complaint of the learned Judge, informed the High Court about it on which an enquiry had taken place. He concluded his reply by stating as hereunder: ‑‑
"In view of the circumstances explained above, it may kindly be appreciated that all complaints against me have originated after a specified date, i.e. 3‑10‑1983 and previous to that not even a word was ever conveyed to me while at Rahimyar Khan. Without attributing any motive to any body I have only to submit that something had happened in quarters not connected with me after this date simply to malign me. This assertion is supported by the fact that applications directed against me, although of various dates and by different persons, were all received registered in the M.I.T. Cell on 3‑12‑1983."
7. A learned Judge of the High Court was' appointed as the Inquiry Officer. A large number of witnesses and documents were produced from both the sides. The learned Inquiry Officer submitted an elaborate report holding the appellant guilty of only one charge and dealt with it as hereunder: ‑‑
"As already stated the accused officer has been guilty of prolonging trial of sessions cases. This fault does reflect on his efficiency. But then, it will only be fair to mention that this defect is fairly common among most Sessions and Additional Sessions Judges of the Province. Only recently the Administration Committee called the explanation of as many as 12 Sessions and Additional Sessions Judges for prolonging the trial of Sessions cases. The accused officer should not be treated differently from the other judicial officers in this regard."
The report concluded as hereunder: ‑‑
"In my opinion charges Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 have not been proved. So far as charge No. 3 is concerned the accused‑officer has been guilty of prolonging trial of Sessions cases but then this defect is common among most of the Sessions and Additional Sessions Judges in the Province and the accused officer should not be treated differently in the matter of disciplinary action. As regards charge No. 4 the accused officer did write an intemperately worded letter to the District and Sessions Judge but he did so under the extreme provocation; for this reason this charge does not deserve serious consideration and should not be pressed further. A copy of the statement made by Malik Saeed Ahmad (C.W. 1) be sent to the Law Secretary in the Provincial Government for such action as he may consider necessary."
8. The Authorised Officer, that is, the Chief Justice by an equally elaborate order held on the basis of Inquiry Officer's report that charges 2. 3, 4 stood proved against the appellant and proposed the penalty of removal from service. Personal hearing was afforded to the appellant on 13‑8‑1984. After such a personal hearing the Authorised Officer finalised his report and recommendation, equally elaborate as the first one, holding him guilty on charge 2 and recommended to the Authority the imposition of penalty of removal from service.
On the relevant charge 2, the finding of the Authorised Officer was as hereunder: ‑‑
"I have observed in my previous note that in order to establish the reputation of corruption of an accused officer it is not necessary that there should be an absolute concurrence of opinion of his superior officer, members of the bar and the public at large. No specific kind or quantum of evidence is required to be brought on the record in a disciplinary inquiry of the present type for drawing of an inference in respect of corrupt reputation of Government servant. Therefore, the presence of citation or particularisation of specific instances of corruption by any of the witnesses appearing against the accused officer in support of the charge levelled against him is not necessary as the charge does not pertain to actual acceptance of bribe or indulgence in corruption by the accused officer. But it simply relates to the enjoyment of continued reputation of corruption by him without there being any solid proof of actual indulgence in corruption. I may point out that in the instant case evidence was produced to show that the accused officer had in fact received illegal gratification from certain parties. But it has not been considered so as to establish beyond any shadow of doubt that he had in fact received illegal gratification. If this was established then instead of departmental proceedings, criminal proceedings could have been initiated against him. Any way, the object of assessment of this type of evidence, in a departmental inquiry of the present kind was to show as to what bearing it may have on the general charge as against the accused officer to the effect that he had a persistent reputation of being corrupt.
In the light of what has been discussed above, I am still of the view that there is sufficient evidence to prove all the three parts of the main charge, and since the main charge stands proved, I am convinced in my mind that the accused officer enjoyed a persistent reputation of being corrupt."
9. When the report and the recommendation was received by the Authority, it designated the Additional Chief Secretary in terms of Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 to hear the appellant. His personal hearing concluded on 24‑12‑1994.
10. The Additional Chief Secretary, hearing the appellant in his report first set out the parameters of his own evaluation standards as hereunder: ‑‑
"Before, however, opining on points at issue I will like to emphasize:
(1) The fundamental principles of natural justice, equity and fair play have both qualitatively and quantitatively the same degree of applicability to the cases of judicial nature as to those of quasi‑judicial/administrative nature.
The standard of proof, though it may not be as rigorous in departmental/administrative proceedings as in judicial proceedings, yet substantiation of guilt/allegation beyond doubt is as much the quintessence of the former as of the latter.
(3) The maxim "benefit of doubt should go to the accused" has the same relevance for departmental/administrative cases as for judicial cases.
These basic fundamentals, read in isolation or conjunction have always served as basis for the machinery of justice in the civilised societies irrespective of the nature of the forum/institution dealing with the valuable human rights or dispensing justice. These principles, therefore, ought to form the over all framework for meaningful appreciation of the cogence of the prosecution/defence cases as also for the analysis of the major issues/facts as have been dilated upon by the authorised officer and the accused officer."
Next, he proceeded to evaluate the reports and the submissions of the appellant as hereunder: ‑‑
With utmost respect to the views of the learned authorised officer, I am of the opinion that the construction and interpretation attached to `reputation' and `persistent reputation of being corrupt' is loose and vague. Needless to say that vagueness is infested with nebulousness; nebulousness creates doubts; and if there are doubts, the facts alleged do not stand substantiated to the degree and extent at to facilitate formulation of authoritative and authentic value judgments. For the proof of allegation, there has to be reasonable degree of specificity and definitiveness. More specifically, if a false campaign of vilification and character assassination is, unleased against a person and fabricated on such a large scale that it grips the minds of the people, it does not amount to a proof of the truthfulness of the campaign. On the contrary, the victim of the campaign would stand stigmatized and declared so notwithstanding that in actual fact he is innocent and otherwise possesses immaculate character Evidently, these are general statements. The point that should be noted is that all of them, in the cross‑examination, conceded that no specific complaint or case was reported to any of these District and Sessions Judges. The Enquiry Officer was, therefore, right in observing that in the absence of material verifying the statements, the charge did not stand proved."
The report of the Additional Chief Secretary concluded as hereunder: ‑
"In view of the foregoing analysis, I am of the opinion that the charge No. (ii) i.e. persistent reputation of being corrupt is not proved."
11. The Chief Secretary (Authority)‑ on an examination of this report recorded his own note, elaborate for a Chief Secretary. He dealt with all the points as hereunder: ‑‑
(i) "Additional Chief Secretary has laid out a basic framework for evaluation and interpretation of the evidence. While it would be difficult to disagree with him on fundamental principles, it may be pointed out, that every situation has its own perspective. The evidence brought on the file has to be viewed within that perspective and if it is detached from the same and read in isolation of practical reality it might fail to lead to the correct and logical conclusion.
(ii) The basic point raised by the Enquiry Officer and the Additional Chief Secretary is that proof to the effect that a person enjoys corrupt reputation requires evidence of actual instances of corruption" The dictionary meaning of the word reputation is "what is generally said or believed about a person's character", or "it is over‑all quality of character as seen or judged by the people in general". It is clear that reputation is the general assessment of the people and it is enough that people in general believe a person to be corrupt to say that he has a corrupt reputation.
(iii) Another point on which Additional Chief Secretary finds himself in agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer is that on the occasion of visits of the Judges of Lahore High Court to the places where the accused officer was posted at that time, no complaint regarding any act of corruption by the accused was brought to their notice.
Authorised Officer/Chief Justice, Lahore High Court has a vast experience of the situation prevailing in the legal profession. He has drawn upon his own experience to evaluate the point raised by the Enquiry Officer. It has been stated: "I can say from my personal experience that I have toured many districts and addressed numerous Bar Associations calling upon the members of the Bar to bring to my notice if they have any complaints against judicial officers but no such complaints were made to me on such visits, although such complaints had been‑subsequently received and in some cases action was taken against the judicial officers.
(iv) Additional Chief Secretary has also drawn attention to the annual confidential reports earned by the accused officer. He is under the impression that due weight has not been given to the confidential reports of the accused officer in para. 18, he has reproduced the argument of the authorised officer in this respect some times favourable confidential reports recorded even by the Chief Justice could be mechanically recorded'. Additional Chief Secretary observes that there was no justification for reducing their importance to filial. C.R. Dossier of the accused officer was summoned from the High Court. It was examined in detail. Accused Officer started his career as a judicial officer in 1977. In a span of seven years of service, the integrity of the accused officer has been rated in the years 1977, 1978 and 1979 as average and in the year 1982 as below average. All these reports have been recorded before the start of the enquiry and I would regard them as objective assessment of the officer and casting an adverse reflection on his reputation. His integrity in his report for the year ending 31‑12‑1983 is rated at poor' but I would disregard it as it was recorded when this enquiry was in progress.
(v) It has been observed by him that the witnesses did not have any grudge or feeling of illwill against the accused officer and this evidence was discarded by the‑ Enquiry Officer only on account of their inability to furnish any specific instances of indulgence in corruption by the accused officer.
(vi) Additional Chief Secretary has also pointed out that authorised officer has placed more reliance on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the degree of the credibility attached to the evidence of the defence witnesses is not the same.
Evidence of the prosecution witness; the effect that accused officer enjoyed a reputation of being corrupt at various stations contain the statements of District and Sessions Judges who as the highest Judicial Officers of the districts had the opportunity of supervising the work of the accused officer. There is no material to believe that these officers deposed against the accused officer out of any illwill. In addition to that, it may be observed that the "reputation" of a person is the general assessment of a man's character by the people amongst whom he lives. It is, therefore, logical to assume that when evidence touching upon the reputation of a judicial officer is assessed then testimony of the members of the Bar would be more relevant than any other person, who may otherwise be very prominent in the social set‑up.
The Authority/Chief Secretary concluded as hereunder: ‑‑
"From the analysis of the evidence brought on the file, the report of the enquiry officer, notes written by the authorised officer on 13th August, 1984 and 25th March, 1985 and the views of the Additional Chief Secretary as contained in his note dated 25‑3‑1985, I find myself in agreement with the recommendation of the authorised officer/Chief Justice of Lahore High Court. The charge of having persistent reputation of being corrupt is proved against Khawaja Saeedul Hassan previously Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan who is presently under suspension. He is, hereby ordered to be removed from service with immediate effect.
Accused officer has remained under suspension since 6th December, 1983. For the period of suspension he may be paid, subsistence allowance as admissible under the rules."
A formal Order to that effect issued on 28‑5‑1985.
12. After unsuccessfully exhausting the departmental remedy of appeal, the appellant approached the Service Tribunal where he failed. Hence this appeal.
13. The findings of the Service Tribunal can be summarised as hereunder: ‑‑
(i) "According to the bare reading of this rule, we are of the considered opinion that learned Additional Chief Secretary was not required to give his opinion about the merits of the case, as the merits were only to be judged by the Authority itself and none else. This being so we will not read his report and bypass the same as being irrelevant/unauthorised. While disposing of this objection in favour of the respondents, we will only concern ourselves with the report of the Inquiry Officer as well as Authorised Officer and the final order of the…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.