| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 2347 2020 SLD 2347 2020 PLC 1100 |
Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Punjab
Service Appeals Nos. 29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 43, 45,49 and 47 of 2017, decided on 18th May, 2019, Date ofhearing: 13th April, 2019.
LAL, JAN KHATTAK, CHAIRMAN IJAZ ANWAR, MEMBER
Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen for Appeallant (in S.As. Nos. 29, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38 and 40 of 2017).Muhammad Zafar Tahirkheli for Appellant (in S.A. No.34 of 2017).Abdul Latif Afridi and Syed Haziq Ali Shah for Appellant (in S.A. Nos.43 of 2017).Mian Hikma
Service Appeals Nos. 29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 43, 45,49 and 47 of 2017, decided on 18th May, 2019, Date ofhearing: 13th April, 2019.
LAL, JAN KHATTAK, CHAIRMAN IJAZ ANWAR, MEMBER
Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen for Appeallant (in S.As. Nos. 29, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38 and 40 of 2017).Muhammad Zafar Tahirkheli for Appellant (in S.A. No.34 of 2017).Abdul Latif Afridi and Syed Haziq Ali Shah for Appellant (in S.A. Nos.43 of 2017).Mian Hikma
ABDUL HAKEEM HASHMI AND OTHERSVSPESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR THROUGH REGISTRAR AND OTHERS
Law: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1987
Section: 4(1),(b)(iii),5(1)(a),7,2(f)(g)(f)
(a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2011--- ----Rr. 4 (1) (b) (iii), 5 (1) (a), 7 2 (f) (g) (l)---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Judicial Service Rules, 2001, R. 4---Judicial Officers (Officers)---Adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports---Effect---Persistent reputation of being corrupt---Misconduct---Dispensing with regular inquiry---Removal from service---Scope---Adverse entries were recorded in the Annual Confidential Reposts of Judicial Officers---Competent authority after issuing show-cause notices to the said officers removed them from service while dispensing with regular inquiry---Contention of officers was that they had been condemned unheard and for proposed major punishment regular inquiry was mandatory---Validity---Officers were communicated adverse remarks recorded in their Annual Confidential Reports and same had been confirmed through Inspection Judge as well as Intelligence Agencies---Regular inquiry could not be dispensed with where it was proposed to impose major penalty---Neither there was any specific instance of corruption nor any complaint to be inquired into, rather it was general reputation of officers and it was an opinion not developed instantly but they had earned it during their judicial career---Competent authority had discretion to proceed departmentally against an officer---Holding an inquiry in the cases of misconduct was not a universal principle but it would depend upon case to case basis---Allegations against the officers were of such a nature that regular inquiry was not necessary---Procedure adopted by the Authority was valid and permissible under the law---Tribunal observed that civil servants were bound to be honest and should have unblemished integrity yet judicial officers were supposed to excel in this trait of character in view of sacred and sensitive nature of their duties---Repeated communication of adverse remarks with regard to doubtful integrity and reputation could be made basis for forming an opinion about reputation of a judicial officer---Complaint with regard to corruption of a judicial officer in all cases was not necessary---Regular inquiry in presence of…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492