2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IJAZ ANWAR, MEMBER.

These twelve appeals are taken up together for disposal, as all the appellants were imposed upon major penalty of removal from service on the charges of corruption by the Competent Authority, within the meaning of Rule 4(1)(b)(iii) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline ) Rules, 2011, (Hereinafter to be referred as E&D Rules, 2011) through Separate Notifications dated 28.04.2017, which have been impugned by them in their respective appeal before this Tribunal.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are being summarized separately herein below, in seriatim:- Service Appeal No.29/2017 Appellant was initially appointed as Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate on contract basis in the year, 1995. Subsequently, he was appointed on regular basis on the recommendations of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission in the year, 1998. He was promoted as Senior Civil Judge and then as Additional District and Sessions Judge. He was served with a show-cause notice dated 05.04.2017 on account of his unbecoming conduct and integrity. Appellant submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice on 12.04.2017. Finally, the Authority in concurrence with the opinion of Administration Committee imposed major penalty of removal from service upon the appellant vide impugned order dated 28.04.2017. Service Appeal No.31/2017 Appellant was appointed as Civil Judge on 11.12.1999 and thereafter, she was promoted as Senior Civil Judge and Additional District and Sessions Judge. She was served with show-cause notice dated 05.04.2017 on account of charges regarding her integrity and conduct is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. Appellant submitted her reply to the said show-cause notice on 13.04.2017. Finally, the Authority in concurrence with the opinion of Administration Committee imposed major penalty of removal from service upon the appellant vide impugned order dated 28.04.2017. Service Appeal No.32/2017 Appellant was appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge on 19.09.2001 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of District and Sessions Judge. However, the appellant was served with show-cause notice dated 05.04.2017 containing allegation regarding his integrity and conduct not above the board. Appellant submitted his reply dated 16.05.2017 to the said show-cause notice. Finally, the Authority in concurrence with the opinion of Administration Committee imposed major penalty of removal from service upon the appellant vide impugned order dated 28.04.2017. Service Appeal No.34/2017 Appellant was appointed as Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate on the recommendations of the Khyer Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission on 11.09.1998. He was promoted as Senior Civil Judge on 13.11.2013. However, he was served with show-cause notice dated 05.04.2017 on account of allegations about his integrity and conduct, which was responded by him through submission of his reply dated 11.04.2017. Finally, the Authority in concurrence with the opinion of Administration Committee imposed major penalty of removal from service upon the appellant vide impugned order dated 28.04.2017. Service Appeal No.36/2017 Appellant was appointed as Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate on the recommendations of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission on 25.06.2003. He was promoted as Senior Civil Judge on 29.06.2015. He was served with show-cause notice dated 05.04.2017 containing allegations regarding general reputation, social contacts and integrity. Appellant submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice on 11.04.2017. Finally, the Authority in concurrence with the opinion of Administration Committee imposed major penalty of removal from service upon the appellant vide impugned order dated 28.04.2017. Service Appeal No.37/2017 Appellant was appointed as Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate on the recommendations of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission in the year, 2004. He was served with show-cause notice dated 05.04.2017 on account of his unbecoming conduct and integrity. Appellant submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice on 11.04.2017. Finally, the Authority in concurrence with the opinion of. Administration Committee imposed major penalty of removal from service upon the appellant vide impugned order dated 28.04.2017. Service Appeal No.38/2017 Appellant was initially appointed as Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate on the recommendations of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission in the year, 1999. He was promoted as Senior Civil Judge in the year, 2006 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge. However, he was served with show-cause notice dated 05.04.2017 by the Authority on account of his unbecoming conduct and integrity. Appellant submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice on 12.04.2017. Finally, the Authority in concurrence with the opinion of Administration Committee imposed major penalty of removal from service upon the appellant vide impugned order dated 28.04.2017. Service Appeal No.40/2017 Appellant was initially appointed as Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate in the year, 1999. Thereafter, he was promoted as Senior Civil Judge and then as Additional District and Sessions Judge. He was served with show-cause notice dated 05.04.2017 on account of his unbecoming conduct and integrity. Appellant submitted his reply on 17.04.2017 to the said show-cause notice. Finally, the Authority in concurrence with the opinion of Administration Committee imposed major penalty of removal from service upon the appellant vide impugned order dated 28.04.2017. Service Appeal No.43/2017 Appellant was initially appointed as Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate on the recommendations of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission in the year, 1999. He was promoted as Senior Civil Judge in the year, 2006 and then as Additional District and Sessions Judge in the year, 2010. He was served with a show-cause notice dated 05.04.2017 on account of unbecoming conduct and integrity, which was responded by him through reply. Finally, the Authority in concurrence with the opinion of Administration Committee imposed major penalty of removal from service upon the appellant vide impugned order dated 28.04.2017. Service Appeal No.45/2017 Appellant was appointed as Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate. He was served with a show-cause notice dated 05.04.2017 on account of his unbecoming conduct and integrity. Appellant submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice on 13.04.2017. Finally, the Authority in concurrence with the opinion of Administration Committee imposed major penalty of removal from service upon the appellant vide impugned order dated 28.04.2017. Service Appeal No.49/2017 Appellant joined judicial service as Civil Judge and he was promoted as Senior Civil Judge and then as Additional District and Sessions Judge. He was served with a show-cause notice dated 05.04.2017 on account of his unbecoming conduct and integrity. Appellant submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice on 12.04.2017. Finally, the Authority in concurrence with the opinion of Administration Committee imposed major penalty of removal from service upon the appellant vide impugned order dated 28.04.2017. Service Appeal No.47/2017 Appellant was initially appointed as Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate on contract basis in the year, 1995. Subsequently, he was appointed on regular basis on the recommendations of the KPK Public Service Commission in the year, 1998. He was promoted as Senior Civil Judge in the year, 2013. He was served with a show-cause notice dated 05.04.2017 on account of his unbecoming conduct and integrity. Appellant submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice on 13.04.2017. Finally, the Authority in concurrence with the opinion of Administration Committee imposed major penalty of removal from service upon the appellant vide impugned order dated 28.04.2017.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that at the relevant time when the appellant was proceeded departmentally there were only two adverse ACRs against the appellant, which were impugned in this Tribunal and have thus not attained finality, while third adverse ACR was communicated after the service of show-cause notice and therefore those entries cannot be used against the appellants. Learned counsel further argued that there is no concept in the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 2011 about reports of Inspection Judges or of the Intelligence Agencies. He argued that those reports were made the basis for the removal of the appellants, but they were never confronted with those allegations, therefore, the appellants were virtually condemned unheard. Learned counsel argued that the superior Courts have consistently held that cases in which the proposed punishment is removal/dismissal from service, regular inquiry is mandatory. It was further argued that quite illegally regular inquiry was dispensed with while there was no admitted record against the appellants, such inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellants are defective. Learned counsel also referred to the in service record and argued that for the period when those Judicial officers were reported adverse in that period they were mostly allowed special increment for best performance and even some of the Judicial Officers were promoted in that period. Lastly exceptions were taken to the powers of the competent authority in initiating departmental proceedings against the appellant on the ground that in view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court reported as PLD 2015 SC 360, and it was argued that when the very departmental proceedings were incompetently commenced and finalized, the whole superstructure built thereupon is liable to fall to the ground. In support of the above arguments reliance placed on 2015 PLC (C.S.) 239, 2015 PLC (C.S.) 173-191, 2007 SCMR 1786, 2010 SCMR 1392, PLD 1986 SC 162, 2004 PLC (C.S.) 1558, 2009 SCMR 412, 2007 SCMR 1389, 2007 SCMR 1726, 2006 SCMR 106, 2003 SCMR 681, 2008 SCMR 1362, 2007 SCMR 1643 and 2015 PLC (C.S.) 868.

4. Learned standing counsel representing respondent argued that judgment of the Supreme Court regarding the competent Authority in respect of judicial officers to initiate departmental proceedings is not relevant to the case in hand, because it was with reference to Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973, while the appellants were proceeded under E&D Rules, 2011. He further argued that the Administration Committee at the initial stage of departmental proceedings as well as at the time of awarding penalty took decision about proceeding departmentally against the appellants. Learned counsel while referring to Rule 5(1)(a) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 2011 argued that it is within the powers of the competent Authority to dispensed with regular inquiry after giving reasons. He argued that there were charges of corruption, which were duly communicated in time through adverse entries in his PER, as such, no further enquiry is required. Learned counsel while referring to the dictionary meaning of 'corruption' argued that it was the reputation of a Judicial Officer based upon collective opinion and therefore, no regular inquiry is required. He argued that the judgments relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable because they pertains to the conduct of ordinary Civil Servant while the appellants are Judicial Officers whose reputation should be unquestionable, exceptional and in these cases their striking reputation has marred their good judicial work. He argued that the High Court had taken extra care, while proceeding against the appellants because despite consecutive communication of adverse entries the same was got verified from the Hon'ble Inspection Judges of the High Court and then confirmed through reputed intelligence agencies. In support of above contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on 2001 SCMR 1161, 2009 SCMR 1169, PLD 2004 SC 222, PLD 1985 SC 134, 2007 SCMR 1786, 1993 SCMR 956, PLD 1977 Kar. 582 and 2014 PLC (C.S.) 1244.

5. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused.

6. In all the connected matters the competency of Honourable the Chief Justice to initiate departmental proceedings against the appellants was vehemently argued, as such, this point is taken up first. The appellants' are proceeded against under the E&D Rules, 2011. The E&D Rules, 2011, empowers only the competent authority to initiate and finalize the departmental proceedings. Rule 2(c) of the E&D Rules, 2011 defines "Appointing Authority" as 'an authority declared or notified as such by an order of Government under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973 (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Act No.XVIII of 1973) and the rules made thereunder or an authority as notified under the specific laws/rules of Government; similarly, Rule 2 (f) defines "Competent Authority":- "competent authority" means- (i) the respective appointing authority; (ii) in relation to a Government servant of a tribunal or court functioning under Government, the appointing authority or the chairman or presiding officer of such tribunal or court, as the case may be, authorized by the appointing authority to exercise the powers of the competent authority under these rules: Provided that where two or more Government Servants are to be proceeded against jointly, the competent authority in relation to the accused Government servant, senior most shall be the competent authority in respect of all the accused".

7. Section 4 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Judicial Service Rules, 2001 provides; "Sec.4. Appointing Authority:-Appointment to a post shall be made by High Court".

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeals Nos.1171 to 1192 of 2013 titled "Registrar, Peshawar High Court v. Shafiq Ahmad Tanoli and others, reported in PLD 2015 SC 360 discussed in detail the "Appointing Authority" with reference to Rule-4 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Judicial Service Rules, 2001 read with High Court Rules and Orders, Volume-V Chapter 10-A, and held the Administration Committee of the High Court consisting of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and three senior most judges of the Peshawar High Court as the appointing authority when acting/exercising statutory powers. Thus, under the E&D Rules, 2011, the competent authority is defined as the "respective appointing authority" while the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Judicial Service Rules, 2001 defines appointing authority as the High Court. Under Rule-5 of the E&D Rules, 2011, the disciplinary proceedings can be initiated by the competent authority if, on the basis of its own knowledge or information placed before it, he is of the opinion that there are sufficient grounds for initiating proceeding against a Government servant. Similarly, if the competent authority decides to hold an enquiry, the procedure prescribed in Rules 7 and 11 of the rules ibid shall be followed, in case where the competent authority dispense with enquiry, shorter procedure prescribed under rule 5 ibid shall be followed. Again, in case the charges are proved, it is only the competent authority that can award punishment under Rule 14 ibid.

9. In this case the matter pertaining to the initiation of departmental proceedings against all the delinquent Judicial Officers was placed before the Administrative Committee of the Hon'ble Peshawar High Court, which has considered it in its meeting held on 5th April, 2017 and a decision was taken to proceed departmentally against them. The suspension orders dated 05.04.2017 of the appellants clearly referred to those recommendations i.e. "in accordance with the recommendation of the Administration Committee of Peshawar High Court in its meeting held on 5th April, 2017, the Competent Authority has been pleased to place the service of (appellant by name) under suspension as he is to be proceeded against under the E&D Rules, 2011 for misconduct." Similarly, in the show-cause notice in Para-2 it has been specifically mentioned as "The Administration Committee decided that those Judicial Officers who despite adverse entries communicated to them had not mended their ways and guarded their reputation, social contacts and overall conduct, were to be proceeded against departmentally, as they had a persistent reputation of being corrupt." Similar is the case when the orders/ notifications of removal from service of these accused Judicial Officers were issued on 28th April, 2017. We reproduced Para-2 thereof for convenience and ready reference: "And whereas after complying with the entire prescribed procedure under the rules ibid, the Authority, in agreement with the Members of the Administration Committee, impose major penalty of removal from service on the accused officer." (The underlines provided for emphasis) We have also requisitioned minutes of the meeting of Administration Committee dated 05.04.2017 and find that there is unanimous decision of the Committee for initiation of departmental proceedings against the appellants. Thus, as required under the law, there is a decision of the High Court from initial to final stage to proceed against the appellants under the E&D Rules, 2011. The objection about the competency of the departmental proceedings is, thus, misplaced and repelled.

10. Now coming to the main allegation on the basis of which the appellants were proceeded against departmentally. We reproduced the relevant adverse remarks and material that was considered in respect of each appellant respectively:- Abdul Hakeem Hashmi (In S.A.29/2017) The Hon'ble Administration Committee of Peshawar High Court recorded the following remarks in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 2014-2015 duly communicated.

1. Integrity Not above board

2. Pin-Picture Warning be issued and guard your reputation.

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Recommendation for promotion Not fit for Promotion Similarly, for the year, 2016 the following remarks were communicated.

1. Integrity Not aboveboard

2. Pin-Picture Despite entries so communicated, you have not guarded your reputation and social contacts and overall conduct. You have a persistent reputation of being corrupt.

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Recommendation for promotion Not fit for Promotion The communication of consecutive remarks and that too regarding the integrity and reputation of the appellant was seriously viewed by the High Court and it was decided to further assess the general reputation. In this regard, the Hon'ble Inspection Judges were appointed to appraise the performance of the appellant and other Judicial Officers qua (i) General Reputation; (ii) Conduct in the Court; and (iii) Qualitative Assessment of Judgments and for this purpose, each of the field was allocated '10' marks. The Hon'ble Inspection Judges submitted their appraisal report regarding each judicial officer. The report of Inspection Judge regarding the appellant is as under:- Abdul Hakeem Hashmi (In S.A. 29 of 2017).

1. General Reputation Zero

2. Conduct in the Court 5

3. Qualitative Assessment of Judgments 7 When the above adverse remarks tallied with the report of the Inspection Judges, the opinion of Intelligence Agencies was sought. In respect of the appellant Abdul Hakeem Hashmi (In S.A.29/2017), it was reported that: "Though the officer is professionally sound yet he has over the years developed a tainted reputation. At a number of stations including Upper Dir and Hangu, there were allegations against him. AT his current place of posting too, people are raising fingers against him. Moreover, strangely despite being a very well-education and foreign qualified officer, he has started administering "Dam Darood" and issuing 'Taweez' to people. This kind of practice at the place of his posting does not sync well with his job and is often publicity ridiculed by bar and public alike." Likewise, the remarks recorded by the Administration Committee in the ACRs for the years, 2014-2015 and 2016, Inspection Judges and Intelligence Agencies, respectively, in respect of Judicial Officers in the connected matters regarding their reputation and integrity are highlighted below:- Mrs. Riffat Aamir (In S.A.31/2017) ACR 2014-2015

1. Integrity Not aboveboard

2. Pin-Picture Warning be issued and guard your reputation

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Recommendation for promotion Not fit for Promotion ACR 2016

1. Integrity Not above board

2. Pin-Picture Despite adverse entries so communicated, you have not guarded your reputation and social contacts and overall conduct. You have a persistent reputation of being financially corrupt

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Recommendation for promotion Not fit Report of Inspection Judge

1. General Reputation Approachable always/corrupt

2. Conduct in the Court 4

3. Qualitative Assessment of Judgments 4 Sardar Muhammad Irshad (In S.A. 32/2017) ACR 2014-2015

1. Integrity Not above board

2. Pin-Picture Guard your reputation

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Recommendation for promotion Not fit for Promotion ACR 2016

1. Integrity Not above board

2. Pin-Picture Despite adverse entries so communicated, you have not improved your reputation and social contacts and overall conduct. You have persistent reputation of being corrupt.

3. Overall grading Below Average Report of Inspection Judge

1. General Reputation Zero

2. Conduct in the Court 7

3. Qualitative Assessment of Judgments 5 Agencies Report "Sardar Muhammad Irsahad (D&SJ) belongs to a respectable educated family of Abbottabad. However, is reported to be involved in financial corruption; as there are serious allegations against him at a number of stations including Upper Dir and other stations. Moreover, he is learnt to be very rude and arrogant; and because of this reasons, inter alia, he is at daggers drawn with the bar as District Judge Dir, he reportedly used to get bribe through a KPO; then developed serious rift with the bar but later on settled the matter realizing that the bar was not ready to give in. In Charsadda too, the bar sharply reacted to his malpractices and ultimately he was posted out." Adil Akbar Khan (in S.A. No.34/2017) ACR 2013

1. Overall grading Below average

2. Remarks of the Hon'ble Administration Committee We agree with the remarks of the reporting officer except grading and honesty of the officer. The officer does not enjoy good reputation and is rated as below average. Counseling be issued.

3. Fitness for promotion Not yet fit for Promotion ACR 2014

1. Remarks of the Hon'ble Administration Committee We do not agree with the remarks of the reporting officer. He does not enjoy good reputation. However he is below average and not fit for promotion.

2. Overall grading Below Average

3. Recommendation for promotion Not fit. ACR 2015

1. Integrity Not Above Board

2. Pen Picture Guard your reputation

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Recommendation for promotion. Not fit for promotion. ACR 2016

1. Pen Picture "Despite adverse entries so communicated, you have not guarded your reputation and social contacts and overall conduct. You have a persistent reputation of being corrupt."

2. Overall grading Below Average

3. Recommendation for promotion Not fit. Report of Inspection Judge

1. General Reputation Unsatisfactory

2. Conduct in the Court

3. Qualitative Assessment of Judgments Agencies Report "Mr. Adil Akbar Khan who is presently serving as Senior Civil Judge in Hangu is generally reported as an average judicial officer. His general reputation is very bad; tainted with allegations of financial issues. There are allegations that as SCJ at one station, he even misappropriated official allowances under the head "Hot and Cold". Due to his work habits and carefree attitude, he has earned the reputation of judge who is least interested in work and happily favours lawyers with adjournments of their choice-at the cost of delay and the agony of litigants. "Interested". He is also considered to be easily approachable." Shah Hussain (In S.A 36/2017) ACR 2014-2015

1. Integrity Not above board

2. Pin-Picture Guard your reputation

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Fitness for promotion Not fit for Promotion ACR 2016

1. Pin-Picture Despite adverse entries so communicated, you have not guarded your reputation and social contacts and overall conduct. You have persistent reputation of being corrupt.

2. Overall grading Below Average

3. Recommendation for promotion Not fit As per report of Inspection Judge, he got Zero marks for his integrity Agencies Report "Appellant was involved in financial corruption and had a bad reputation." Tasawar Hussain (In S.A. 37/2017) ACR 2014-2015

1. Integrity Not aboveboard

2. Pin-Picture Guard your reputation

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Recommendation for promotion Not fit for Promotion ACR 2016

1. Pin-Picture Despite adverse entries so communicated, you have not guarded your reputation and social contacts and overall conduct. You have a persistent reputation of corrupt Report of Inspection Judge

1. General Reputation Known to be corrupt, Not Above board, too much visits and attends public gathering

2. Conduct in the Court 5

3. Qualitative Assessment of Judgments 7 Agencies Report "Mr. Tasawar Hussain belongs to D.I.Khan. He is presently posted as Civil Judge at Peshawar. His general reputation is tainted with allegation of financial corruption; particularly his stint in Peshawar. On other stations too, it is alleged that some of his decisions are based on monetary considerations. He failed to mend his ways and repeated the same in successive postings. He is regarded as corrupt person." Manzoor Qadir (In S.A 38/2017) ACR 2014-2015

1. Integrity Not above board

2. Pin-Picture Guard your reputation

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Fitness for promotion Not fit for Promotion ACR 2016

1. Integrity Not above board

2. Pin-Picture "Despite adverse entries so communicated, you have not guarded your reputation and social contacts and overall conduct. You have a persistent reputation of being corrupt."

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Recommendation for Promotion Not fit Report of Inspection Judge

1. General Reputation Zero

2. Conduct in the Court 8

3. Qualitative Assessment of Judgments 9 Agencies Report "Mr. Manzoor Qadir Joined Judiciary in 1999 and at present he is posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mansehra since April, 2015. He despite having a respected background, could not carry himself well in judiciary. From the very outset, he has been facing allegations of financial corruption. While posted in Buner, besides allegations of corruption in cases he was adjudicating upon, there were reports that he managed to misappropriate official funds; and resultantly an enquiry was also conducted by the High Court. Despite this, the officer miserably failed to mend his ways and kept on with his malpractices. In the recent past, while posted in Chotta Lahore, Swabi he earned notoriety for himself and his department by indulging in financial corruption. Even in Mansehra he has very bad reputation; and these things are discussed openly in District Bar Mansehra." Qaiser Rahim (In S.A 40/2017) ACR 2014-2015

1. Integrity Not above board

2. Pin-Picture Warning be issued and guard your reputation

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Recommendation for promotion Not fit for Promotion ACR 2016

1. Integrity Not above Board

2. Pin-Picture "Despite adverse entries so communicated, you have not guarded your reputation and social contacts and overall conduct. You have a persistent reputation of being corrupt."

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Recommendation for Promotion Not fit Report of Inspection Judge

1. General Reputation Zero

2. Conduct in the Court 4

3. Qualitative Assessment of Judgments 7 Agencies Report "Mr. Qaiser Rahim belongs to D.I.Khan and is presently posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karak. The general reputation of the officer is tainted. There have been serious allegations against him in the past. There are reports that he indulges in financial malpractices currently as well, though very discreetly. There are also reports that while posted as Director P&D Cell in High Court he earned favours from contractors and suppliers." Amjad Makhdoom (In S.A 43/2017) ACR 2012-2013

1. Integrity Not aboveboard

2. Pin-Picture The Administration Committee unanimously held that the Officer does not enjoy good reputation and rates him below average

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Recommendation for promotion Not fit ACR 2014-2015

1. Integrity Not above board

2. Pin-Picture Warning be issued and guard your reputation.

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Recommendation for promotion Not fit for promotion. ACR 2016

1. Integrity Not above Board

2. Pin-Picture "Despite adverse entries so communicated, you have not guarded your reputation and social contacts and overall conduct. You have a persistent reputation of being corrupt."

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Recommendation for Promotion Not fit Report of Inspection Judge

1. General Reputation Zero

2. Conduct in the Court 5

3. Qualitative Assessment of Judgments 6 Also awarded punishment of reduction to lower stage vide order dated 10.10.2015. Agencies Report "He is reported to have dubious reputation because there are allegations against him at different stations. He is also fond of protocol and shows off official status instead of staying away from socializing; as required and expected in Judiciary." Rashid Rauf Swati (In S.A. 45/2017) ACR 2014

1. Integrity Not above board

2. Pin-Picture We do not agree with the remarks of the reporting officer. He does not enjoy good reputation. However he is below average and not fit for promotion.

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Fitness for promotion Not fit. ACR 2015

1. Integrity Not Aboveboard

2. Pin Picture Warning be issued and guard your reputation

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Recommendation for promotion. Not fit for promotion. ACR 2016

1. Pin-Picture "Despite adverse entries so communicated, you have not guarded your reputation and social contacts and overall conduct. You have a persistent reputation of being corrupt."

2. Overall grading Below Average

3. Recommendation for promotion Not fit. Report of Inspection Judge

1. General Reputation Need to be kept under close observation, as his past is muddy and dirty.

2. Conduct in the Court 7

3. Qualitative Assessment of Judgments 9 Agencies Report "Mr. Rashid Rauf Swati faced serious allegations of both financial and moral corruption at a number of stations. But he particularly had serious issues in Karak and Peshawar where the gravity of the allegations was for more intense. Though he is regarded as a smooth handler who manages to cover up things smartly yet these things cannot be covered up; hence his reputation is quite poor." Malik Amjad Rahim (In S.A 49/2017) ACR 2014-2015

1. Integrity Not above board

2. Pin Picture Warning be issued and guard your reputation

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Recommendation for promotion. Not fit for promotion. ACR 2016

1. Integrity Not Above Board

2. Pin-Picture "Despite adverse entries so communicated, you have not guarded your reputation and social contacts and overall conduct. You have a persistent reputation of being corrupt."

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Recommendation for promotion Not fit. Report of Inspection Judge

1. General Reputation Most Corrupt

2. Conduct in the Court 8

3. Qualitative Assessment of Judgments 7 Agencies Report "Malik Amjad Rahim who is presently posted as ADJ, Peshawar has stinking reputation of corruption. Almost all the stations that he has served at, he has earned persistently miserable reputation and pathetic public opinion. In Mardan and Upper Dir and even in Peshawar (during his previous tenure), there were grave allegations of financial corruption. Moreover, unlike the norms of judiciary, he is fond of too much protocol and pomp and show; and his life style in no way goes well with his job requirements. His financial reputation is a stigma on judiciary." Safeer Qaiser Malik (In S.A 49/2017) ACR 2014

1. Remarks of the Hon'ble Administration Committee We do not agree with the remarks of the reporting officer. He does not enjoy good reputation. However he is below average and not fit for promotion.

2. Overall grading Below Average

3. Recommendation for promotion Not fit. ACR 2015

1. Integrity Not Above Board

2. Pen Picture Guard your reputation

3. Overall grading Below Average

4. Recommendation for promotion. Not fit for promotion. ACR 2016

1. Pen-Picture "Despite adverse entries so communicated, you have not guarded your reputation and social contacts and overall conduct. You have a persistent reputation of being corrupt."

2. Overall grading Below Average

3. Recommendation for promotion Not fit for Promotion Report of Inspection Judge

1. General Reputation Zero

2. Conduct in the Court Nil

3. Qualitative Assessment of Judgments Nil Agencies Report "Mr. Safeer Qaiser Malik joined Judiciary in 1995 and remained posted Civil Judge in Oghi, District Mansehra, Lakki Marwat, Mardan, Karak and Kohistan. An otherwise senior Judge (1995 Batch) but he has not been promoted due to his bad reputation. There are persistent allegations of his financial corruption in cases. He earned particularly bad name in Karak, besides so many other districts, where the people complained bitterly against him. Some reports suggest that even in Tank he has not mended his ways."

11. Rule 2(g) of the E&D Rules, 2011 defines 'corruption' as follows: "corruption" means- (i) accepting or obtaining or offering any gratification or valuable thing, directly or indirectly, other than legal remuneration, as a reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act; or (ii) dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriating, or indulging in embezzlement or misusing Government property or resources; or (iii) entering into plea bargain under any law for the time being in force and returning the assets or gains acquired through corruption or corrupt practices voluntarily; or (iv) possession of pecuniary sources or property by a Government servant or any of his dependents or any other person, through his or on his behalf, which cannot be accounted for and which are disproportionate to his known sources of income; or (v) maintaining a standard of living beyond known sources of income; or (vi) having a reputation of being corrupt." (Underline provided) Similarly, the word misconduct has been given an exhaustive definition in Rule 2(1) as follows: "misconduct" includes- (i) conduct prejudicial to good order or service discipline; or (ii) conduct contrary to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1987, for the time being in force; or (iii) conduct unbecoming of Government servant and a gentleman; or (iv) involvement or participation for gains, directly or indirectly, in industry, trade, or speculative transactions by abuse or misuse of official position to gain undue advantage or assumption of such financial or other obligations in relation to private institutions or persons as may compromise the performance of official duties or functions; or (v) any act to bring or attempt to bring outside influence, directly or indirectly, to bear on the Governor, the Chief Minister, a Minister or any other Government officer in respect of any matter relating to the appointment, promotion, transfer or other conditions of service; or (vi) making appointment or promotion or having been appointed or promoted on extraneous grounds in violation of any law or rules; or (vii) conviction for a moral offence by a court of law." We are dealing with the cases of senior Judicial Officers who are proceeded departmentally for the allegations of 'persistent reputation of being corrupt' and 'below average integrity'. Regarding the outright integrity and conduct of a Judicial Officer, reference to the case of 'Saad Salam Ansari v. Chief Justice, High Court of Sindh, Karachi' (2006 PLC (C.S.) 938), would not be out of place, wherein the Hon'ble Sindh Judiciary Service Tribunal observed as under: "At the outset it must be stated that the factum that we are dealing with the case of a Senior Judicial Officer could not be lost sight of. The conduct of the Judicial Officer must not, in any case be ventured to be equated with the conduct of an ordinary civil servant, as the Judicial Officers are bestowed with the Power to adjudicate to rights of the people and the matters involving life and liberty of citizens. By very nature of the duty cast upon the judicial officers, they are not only expected, but required to demonstrate unimpeachable character, high integrity, and transparency in their actions coupled with nobility and dignity, as compared to other civil servants. The Judicial Officers found/and/or believed to be involving in corrupt practices, and those infested with inefficiency could not be allowed to go scot-free, as it is essential to rid the subordinate judiciary of mess and pollution." Similarly, in the case of 'Ch. Shabbir Hussain v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore' reported in (2004 PLC (C.S.) 236), it was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court as under:- "The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties have received our anxious consideration. However, before proceeding to determine the questions involved in these appeals we deem it necessary to observe that although all the 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 or their duties and the pivotal position which justice occupies in Islam according to the following verse of the Holy Qur'an:-- " 'O' You who believe, the maintainers of justice, bearers of witness for Allah's sake though it may be against your owneselves or your parents or near relations, be he rich or poor, Allah is most Competent to deal with them both, therefore, do not follow your low desires lest you deviate, and if you swerve or turn aside then Allah is aware of what you do" (Sura 4 Verse 135). Islam also enjoins that those who perform the functions 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. We, therefore, cannot help remarking that Judicial Officers are expected to guard their reputation jealously and the Reporting Officer/Countersigning Officers are obliged to assess their conduct after careful consideration and without being led away by any prejudice or bias."

12. The main allegations levelled against the appellants are "persistent reputation of being corrupt", firstly they were communicated Adverse Remarks and then 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 major penalty, 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. In its dictionary concept, the word 'reputation' means 'What is thought of a person by others and the general reputation of a person in the collective opinion of those among whom he lives and works.' In the case of 'Shah Nazar Khan v. Assistant Commissioner and S. D. M., Malir, Karachi and 3 others' (PLD 1977 Karachi 582), the definition of 'reputation' is mentioned as under: "Reputation is a sum total of the rumours and talks about a man accepted and believed by those who know him well. The evidence of reputation is made up partly of the belief of deponent and partly of what he heard from others of their beliefs. Distinction between reputation and rumour is well marked, though it may be difficult to say generally where a rumour ends and reputation begins. How many instances build up a reputation and how long it takes for rumours to ripen into reputation cannot be laid down by any hard and fast rule. A man's general reputation is the reputation which he bears in the place in which he lives. Reputation of man's character is the inference or estimate from the sum total of a man's action and qualities drawn or formed by persons who are acquainted with him or among whom he resides and with whom he is chiefly conversant or the circles in which he moves. It is the prevailing opinion formed by those, with whom he associates and who would have the best opportunity of knowing his habits and general behaviour."

13. In the above background we may refer to the statutory provision regarding conduct of departmental proceedings. The Competent Authority has the discretion to proceed departmentally against an officer, as provided in Rule-5 of E&D Rules, 2011, which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience: "

5. Initiation of proceedings.

(1) If on the basis of its own knowledge or information placed before it, the competent authority is of the opinion that there are sufficient grounds for initiating proceedings against a Government servant under these rules it shall either:- (a) proceed itself against the accused by issuing a show-cause notice under rule 7 and, for reasons to be recorded in writing, dispense with inquiry:" The procedure, where inquiry is dispensed with, is provided in Rule 7 of the E&D Rules, 2011, which reads as under:

7. Procedure where inquiry is dispensed with.

If the competent authority decides that it is not necessary to hold an inquiry against the accused under Rule 5, it shall- (a) inform the accused by an order in writing, of the grounds for proceeding against him, clearly specifying the charges therein, along with apportionment of responsibility and penalty or penalties proposed to be imposed upon him; (b) give him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action, within seven days of receipt of the order or within such extended period, as the competent authority may determine; (c) on receipt of reply of the accused within the stipulated period or after the expiry thereof, if no reply is received, determine whether the charge or charges have been proved against the accused or not: Provided that after receipt of reply to the show-cause notice from the accused, the competent authority, except where the Chief Minister himself is the competent authority, shall decide the case within a period of ninety days, excluding the time during which the post held by the competent authority remained vacant due to certain reasons: Provided further that if the case is not decided by the competent authority within the prescribed period of ninety days, the accused may file an application before the appellate authority for early decision of his case, which may direct the competent authority to decide the case within a specified period; (d) afford an opportunity of personal hearing before passing any order of penalty under clause (f), if it is determined that the charge or charges have been proved against him; (e) exonerate the accused, by an order in writing, if it is determined that the charge or charges have not been proved against him; and (f) impose any one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 4, by an order in writing, if the charge or charges are proved against the accused: Provided that where charge or charges of grave corruption are proved against an accused, the penalty of dismissal from service shall be imposed, in addition to the penalty of recovery, if any." Thus, holding an inquiry in cases of misconduct is not a universal principle but it depends upon case to case basis. In the case of 'Government of Sindh and others v. Saiful Haq Hashmi and others' (1993 SCMR 956), the Apex Court ruled as under: "The nature of proof required depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In every case it is not necessary to produce oral evidence. Cases which are clearly dependent on documents alone on which both the parties rely, hardly require any oral evidence unless shown to be needed by any party. There were no disputed questions of fact with regard to pleadings of the parties, applications and the orders passed by the respondent. Only assessment of the record was to be made by the 'authorised officer' before deciding the course of action. In such cases depending on facts, if inquiry officer or inquiry committee is not appointed it would not amount to illegality." Similarly, In the case of 'Executive Engineer and others v. Zahid Sharif' (2005 SCMR 824), it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "All that the rule requires is that the competent authority should make a decision on the question whether an inquiry should be held or not, and if it decides not to hold an inquiry, it is bound to inform the accused in writing of the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and the grounds of such action." In the case of 'Nawab Khan and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and others' (PLD 1994 SC 222), it was held that: "The question, whether any major punishment can be imposed upon a civil servant without holding an enquiry, depends on the facts of each case. Clause (iii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules empowers the Authorised Officer to dispense with the enquiry but he is required (by an order in writing) to inform the accused of the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and the grounds of action and to give him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action." In the case of 'Javid Akhtar v. Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others' (1991 SCMR 140), it was held that 'A civil servant could not have a choice nor could he insist that a particular procedure for holding a disciplinary procedure should be followed.' Similar view was expressed in case of 'The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore and others v. Anis-ur-Rehman Khan' (PLD 1985 SC 134) wherein it is held that 'Considering dispensing with the inquiry is the discretion of the competent authority which is not controlled by any prerequisite or guidelines.' Keeping in view the above discussion, in the presence of adverse remarks in the PERs of the appellants, reports of Inspection Judge(s) and Intelligence Agencies, the shorter procedure of show-cause notice adopted by the Competent Authority under Rules was valid and permissible and the allegations were of such a nature that it did not require any regular inquiry.

14. As referred to above, it has repeatedly been held by the superior Courts that all the civil servants are bound to be honest and should 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 their 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 basis for forming an opinion about reputation of the judicial officer and it is not necessary in all cases that there must be complaints about the corruption of a judicial officer. Similarly, it would be a rarest case that someone can come forward to depose against a judicial officer regarding his corruption because it is improbable that any beneficiary of such corruption would come and expose himself to the subsequent consequences of such deposition. While perusing the show-cause notices, the above adverse material was duly mentioned as an allegation in the show-cause notices. Similarly, with the comments there is report of the Additional Registrar (Admn) of the High Court, whereby, the appellants were allowed to examine the report of Inspection Judge(s) and Intelligence Agencies. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of 'Government of Sindh and others v. Saiful Haq Hashmi and others' (1993 SCMR 956) held that: "The Courts presided over by Judges are institutions which command respect, faith and confidence for implementation of rule of law, justice and equity. If at any stage justice is tainted, tarnished or contaminated with dishonesty and corruption or abhors the judicial conscience, the blame squarely lies upon the Judge for behaving in a manner unbecoming of a Judge or a gentleman. Purity of the fountain of justice has to be maintained and protected zealously from corruption, contamination and pollution which distorts its angelic and divine face."

15. We for the stated reasons are of the opinion that in presence of the above referred adverse material there was no need of regular inquiry, the appellants were proceeded strictly in accordance with the provisions of E&D Rules, 2011. However, we find that in some of the cases, the Judicial Officers (Appellants), on receipt of the show-cause notices, had submitted resignations for premature retirement. We have also noted that recently the Judicial Officers proceeded for the same allegations, were awarded major penalties of compulsory retirement from service and their appeals before this 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 awarded vide notifications dated 28.04.2017 into that of 'compulsory retirement from service'. With the above modification in the impugned orders, this and the connected appeals are hereby dismissed. ZC/177/P Order accordingly.