Detailed verdict on appeals by 12 sacked judges: Tribunal commutes judges’ removal from service to forced retirement

PESHAWAR: The Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has reduced the sentence of 12 judges and converted their removal from service into forced retirement.

In a 29-page detailed judgment authored by Justice Ijaz Anwar, it was ruled that on the principle of parity the tribunal was inclined to modify the major penalty of removal from service awarded through a notification dated April 28, 2017 into that of “compulsory retirement” from service. The two-member tribunal comprising Justice Lal Jan Khattak and Justice Ijaz Anwar heard the appeals of the 12 subordinate judges against their removal by the PHC administrative committee. “We, for the reasons recorded in the case, are of the opinion that in presence of the referred adverse material against the appellants, there was no need of regular inquiry and the appellants were proceeded against strictly in accordance with the provisions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2011. However, we find that in some of the cases, the judicial officers on receipt of the show-cause notices had submitted resignations for premature retirement. We have also noted that recently the judicial officers proceeded against for the same allegations were awarded major penalties of compulsory retirement from service and their appeals before the tribunal and the Apex Court failed, as such, on the principle of parity, we are inclined to modify the major penalty of removal from service into compulsory retirement from service,” stated the judgment passed in the appeals of the sacked subordinate judges.

The appellants included former District and Sessions Judge Sardar Muhammad Irshad and former Additional District and Sessions Judges Malik Amjad Rahim, Amjad Makhdoom, Mohsin Ali Turk, Qaiser Rahim, Manzoor Qadir, Abdul Hakeem Hashmi and Riffat Aamir. Others were four former senior civil judges Safeer Qaiser Malik, Adil Akbar Khan, Rashid Rauf and Shah Hussain and former civil judge Tasawar Hussain. In the judgment, the tribunal stated that the main allegations against the appellants are “persistent reputation of being corrupt”. It noted that they were first communicated adverse remarks and the allegations were duly confirmed through the inspection judges as well as reputed intelligence agencies.

“We have also gone through the reported judgments of the superior courts relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that where it is proposed to impose a major penalty, the conduct of regular inquiry cannot be dispensed with. However, in these connected appeals neither there are any specific instances of corruption nor any particular complaint to be inquired into, rather it is their general reputation and it is an opinion not developed instantly, but they earned it during their judicial career,” the judgment stated. About the question of regular inquiry, the tribunal stated that the competent authority has the discretion to proceed departmentally against a judicial officer as provided in Rule-5 of E&D Rules 2011. The tribunal stated that conducting a regular inquiry in cases of misconduct is not a universal principle, but it depends upon case to case basis.

“Keeping in view the above discussion, in the presence of the adverse remarks in the PERs of the appellants, reports of inspection judges and intelligence agencies, the shorter procedure of show-cause notices adopted by the competent authority under rules was valid and permissible and the allegations were of such a nature that it did not require regular inquiry,” the judgment added. “It has repeatedly been held by superior judiciary that all the civil servants are bound to be honest and shall have unblemished integrity yet the judicial officers are supposed to excel in this trait of character in view of the sacred and sensitive nature of duties and owing to the pivotal position that justice occupies in Islam. In fact, repeated communication of adverse remarks about doubtful integrity and reputation can be made the basis for forming an opinion about reputation of a judicial officer and it is not necessary in all cases that there must be complaints about the corruption,” the tribunal observed. In some of the cases of judicial officers, the tribunal also mentioned intelligence agencies’ report about the misconduct and financial corruption of the judges. However, the tribunal stated that counsels for the appellants while arguing the cases submitted that there is no concept in the Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 2011 about reports of inspection judges or of intelligence agencies. They argued that the reports were made the basis for removal of the appellants, but they were never confronted with those allegations and, therefore, the appellants were virtually condemned unheard. The counsels argued that the superior courts have consistently held that in cases of major penalties including removal, regular inquiry is mandatory. They pointed out that regular inquiries were not conducted in the cases of the appellants.