2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J./CHAIRMAN.

Through the instant Service Appeal under section 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991, the appellant has assailed Notification No. 214/RHC/CJJ., dated 28.9.2001, issued by Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby he has been dismissed from service.

2. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Tribunal is that conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under the Contempt of Court Act does not come within the ambit of "moral turpitude" attracting the provisions of Rule 11(1) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 and that neither he was afforded sufficient opportunity to plead his defence nor the above said point of law was considered while passing order of his dismissal from service.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent while justifying the impugned notification of dismissal has submitted that the appellant had for more than a decade adopted the conduct which was full of defiance and he intentionally maligned the Hon'ble Judges of the higher judiciary in a scandalous manner as such his conviction under Contempt of Court Act squarely falls within the ambit of moral turpitude. Therefore, the order of his dismissal is not open to any exception.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. Admittedly the appellant has been dismissed from service on account of the charge that he has been convicted under section 3/4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which was upheld upto the Apex Court. So the pivotal question before the Authority was whether the conviction and sentence so awarded to the appellant involved moral turpitude so as to dismiss him from service under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999. The phrase "Moral Turpitude" is not defined in the aforesaid Rules. In common parlance it connotes an act which could shock the moral conscience of society in general. In the case of Imtiaz Hussain Phulpto v. Returning Officer (1987 SCMR 468) Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court have laid down the following test for adjudging whether an offence does or does not involve moral turpitude:

1. Whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the moral conscience of society in general?

2. Whether the motive which led to act was base one; and

3. Whether on account of the act having been committed perpetrator could be considered to be a depraved character or a person who was to be looked down upon by society?

6. There is nothing on record to suggest that the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case were examined in the light of above settled principles by the competent Authority before passing dismissal order of the appellant while considering his conviction under the offence of moral turpitude.

7. Another aspect of the matter is that after dismissal from service, the appellant has been enrolled as an advocate by the Punjab Bar Council who did not consider him to be guilty of moral turpitude. Learned counsel representing the respondent-Department has not been able to rebut the above position. No similar exercise has been undertaken by the Authority, to reach a just conclusion.

8. In view of the fact that the respondent-department has dismissed the appellant from service without deliberating upon the core issue involved in the matter, we are, therefore, inclined to set aside the impugned notification and deem it appropriate to remand the matter for decision afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and considering all the legal and factual pleas raised by him in support of his claim, including the fact that by now he has crossed the age of superannuation. ZC/3/PST Case remanded.