2007 PLP 1726 (SCMR)
SAAD SALAM ANSARI — Appellant Versus CHIEF JUSTICE OF SINDH HIGH COURT, KARACHI through Registrar — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1726 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi and Nasir-ul-Mulk, JJ |
| Parties | SAAD SALAM ANSARI — Appellant Versus CHIEF JUSTICE OF SINDH HIGH COURT, KARACHI through Registrar — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, (c) Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, (a) Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1726 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, (c) Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, (a) Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1726 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi and Nasir-ul-Mulk, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1726 (SCMR) (SAAD SALAM ANSARI — Appellant Versus CHIEF JUSTICE OF SINDH HIGH COURT, KARACHI through Registrar — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- Masood A. Noorani, Additional Advocate-General Sindh for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th January, 2007.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Sindh Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, dated 31-5-2006 passed in Service Appeal No.7 of 2003).
S. 3-B
Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R.5(3)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212 (3)
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether the conduct and performance of judicial officer was such which warranted major penalty of removal from service without holding a regular inquiry into the allegations against him.
R. 5
Procedure to be adopted
Regular inquiry, dispensing with
Authorized officer has to decide as to which of the two procedures provided in R.5 of Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, has to be adopted
If authorized officer is in favour of adopting summary procedure, he should exercise such discretion with extra care so that no prejudice is caused to the civil servant facing departmental proceedings for the charge of misconduct
Decision regarding dispensation of regular inquiry always depends on the nature of charge and circumstances of each case
In a case in which charge cannot be established without recording evidence and providing a proper opportunity to civil servant to cross-examine witnesses and also produce evidence in defence, dispensation of regular inquiry is not justified except in extraordinary circumstances.
Rr. 4 (1)(b)(iii) & 5 (3)
Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), S.3-B
Regular inquiry, dispensing with
Allegation
Judicial officer was alleged to be guilty of misconduct and he was removed from service without holding a regular inquiry
Allegation against judicial officer was that despite order passed by High Court, he proceeded with execution petition
Judicial officer in his reply to show cause notice categorically stated that he had no knowledge of the order of High Court regarding calling of record in ejectment petition and proceeded with execution petition in accordance with the requirement of law
Factual controversy regarding knowledge of order of High Court could not be ascertained without recording statements of concerned officials of the court or tenant or his counsel as the case might be, with right of cross-examination to the judicial officer
In absence of such evidence, knowledge of order of High Court, could not be attributed to the judicial officer
Presumption of law to the extent that an order or notice sent by registered post must have reached its destination, could be conveniently raised but the question whether such notice or order was in knowledge of a particular person, was a question of fact which could not be presumed without adducing evidence and providing a fair opportunity of cross-examination to witnesses and production of evidence in rebutial
Except in special circumstances, in departmental proceedings procedure of regular inquiry should be followed to prove charge of misconduct, which might have the consequence of major penalty of dismissal or removal from service and such inquiry might not be dispensed with in normal circumstances
Charge of misconduct based on allegation of misuse of power for extraneous consideration involving tactual inquiry was required to be proved through evidence and dispensation of regular. inquiry amounted to condemning the judicial officer unheard and refusing him right of defence
Judgment passed by Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal and order of removal from service were set aside and the judicial officer was reinstated in service
Competent Authority may, if so desire hold a proper enquiry into the matter against the appellant.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.
This appeal by leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment dated 3-5-2006 passed by Sindh Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal (hereinafter to be called "the Tribunal") established under section 3-B of Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973; whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against his removal from service under rule 4(1)(b)(iii) of Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, (hereinafter to be referred as "the Rules"), was dismissed.
2. The appellant, while serving as Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South, was served with show-cause notice on 31-12-2001 as under:.-- "You, Mr. Saad Salam Ansari, Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South are hereby informed that on the ground mentioned hereunder, it is proposed to take disciplinary action against you for gross misconduct and inefficiency and to impose on you major penalty of dismissal from service prescribed under Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1973. Grounds (1) That one Muhammad Imlak son of Muhammad Sultan resident of Karachi has complained that he was the tenant of one Mst. Afshan who had filed. Rent case No.1645 of 1998 in the Court of IX Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi-South, presided over by you, which was decided against the complainant, who being the aggrieved party filed First Rent Appeal bearing No.48 of 2001 which was pending adjudication. The landlady Mst. Afshan and others also filed an Execution Application.No.31 of 2001 before your Court, but no notice was served upon the complainant/respondent. In the meantime, the High Court called the R&Fs of the case vide letter dated 15-2-2001 but you .deliberately did not comply with the directives of the High Court and passed collusive and mala fide ejectment order; adopting fully unfair attitude towards the tenant Muhammad Imlak giving undue favour to the landlady.