1989 PLP 1452 (SCMR)

GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Abdul Hameed Khan Niazi, ex‑Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rahimyarkhan filed appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal against his compulsory retirement. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by judgment, dated 22‑5‑1984. He now seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment. The petitioner was working at Rahimyarkhan as Additional District and Sessions Judge. A complaint was filed by an Advocate of Rahimyarkhan with the Chief Justice, Lahore High Court. It was about the corrupt practices indulged in by the petitioner. The Chief Justice directed Muhammad Munir Khan, J. to hold preliminary enquiry. The Judge met the local lawyers and reported that the petitioner indulged in corruption at large scale, enjoyed very bad reputation of being highly corrupt and had employed several touts. As a result of the enquiry the Government decided to proceed against the petitioner under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 on the charge 10 of corruption. The Secretary Law was appointed Authorised Officer by the. Government. He appointed Mr. Muhammad Amir Malik, District and Sessions Judge, Multan to conduct the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer recorded evidence including the defence witnesses. He submitted his report to the Authorised Officer. All the charges against the petitioner had been proved. Consequent upon the enquiry, the Authorised Officer issued notice to the petitioner for personal hearing. He was afforded an opportunity to show cause why imposition of major penalty be not recommended. The petitioner appeared before the Authorised Officer. He was heard. He also filed a written statement. That was taken into consideration by the Authroised Officer. He was not satisfied with his oral explanation as well as written statement. The Authroised Officer accordingly recommended imposition of major penalty. It was after a personal hearing by the Authority that the petitioner was ultimately retired compulsorily w.e.f. 14‑3‑1983. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition repeated the same contentions which he had raised before the Tribunal and which had been dealt with one by one. Nevertheless we heard the learned counsel in order to make sure that those had been rightly repelled. It was contended that the proceedings and action taken against the petitioner was in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975. Learned counsel submitted that the Governor was the competent authority to pass the final order. It was next contended that the review petition filed by the petitioner had not been disposed of in accordance with law. On merits, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was entitled to be represented by a lawyer but he was denied this concession illegally. Learned counsel then submitted that the Enquiry Officer did not at all advert to the defence version nor proper attention was paid to the statement of the petitioner. Learned counsel argued that if at all importance was to be given to the evidence of the lawyers then the prosecution produced seventeen whereas twenty ?eight Advocates appeared on behalf of the petitioner to depose that he was an honest, efficient judicial officer. All these points had been dealt with by the Tribunal and were rightly decided. The Tribunal rightly observed, "We have taken pains to read every word of the evidence so brought on record by the learned Enquiry Officer, as stated before him by the P.Ws., CWs. and DWs. including the statement of the appellant himself. Undoubtedly strengthwzse the number of D.Ws. is much larger than that of P.Ws. but it is not always the number of witnesses which weighs with the Authority but it is the quality of evidence, which ultimately decides the fate of the case." This observation word by word is correct because we find that the Tribunal while dealing with the appeal took all the legal points into consideration and appreciated the entire evidence witness‑wise, leaving no scope for any kind of apprehension that either the petitioner had been condemned unheard or that there was any misreading of evidence or that some important evidence had been ignored. Dismissed. A.A./A‑482/S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.