BEFORE THE SINDH SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY SERVICE TRIBUNAL, HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Service Appeal No. 04 of 2003

Service Appeal No. 08 of 2009

Service Appeal No. 02 of 2016

Present

Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto

Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi

JUDGMENT

Date of Hearing : 27.01.2018

Date of Judgment : 24.02.2018

Appellant : Ghulam Shabbir Soomro in person.

Respondent : Mr. Ziauddin Junejo Asstt: Advocate General Sindh.

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J. (Chairman)- This judgment will dispose of Service Appeal No. 04/2003, Service Appeal No.08/2009 against adverse remarks and Service Appeal No. 02/2016 against order dated 26.08.2015, whereby appellant has been dismissed from service. Above mentioned appeals are inter-related, common question of facts and law is involved.

2. The facts of Service Appeal No.4/2003 are that appellant Ghulam Shabbir Soomro was appointed as Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate on 08.04.1996. He served in various Districts. In the ACR for the period of 08.03.2000 to 31.12.2000 adverse remarks were recorded. In pen picture, it was observed that he was not enjoying good reputation. He had no knowledge of the law. Countersigning authority agreed with the Reporting Officer and adverse remarks were communicated to him by the Registrar of this Court vide letter dated 31.08.2002. Appellant made representation for expunction of the adverse remarks. The Chief Justice after perusing the representation and giving personal hearing to the appellant, rejected the same vide order dated 18.01.2003 for the following reasons:-

“Heard Mr. Soomro with regards to his representation for expunction of adverse remarks given to him in his ACR for the period from 08.03.2000 to 31.12.2000 by the District & Sessions Judge, Larkana. The Reporting Officer has assigned the below average remarks in relation to negligence, integrity, judgment, power of expression, knowledge of work, ability to take decision and output and quality of work. In the pen picture, he remarked that the officer was not enjoying good reputation and he had no knowledge of law. No plausible and cogent grounds have been raised by the concerned Civil Judge for modifying the ratings assigned by the Reporting officer who had the opportunity of keeping himself abreast of the working, competency and integrity of the concerned Civil Judge. No case is made out for expunction of the adverse remarks and his representation stands rejected.”

3. Above order was communicated to the appellant through concerned District and Sessions Judge. Mr. Soomro being dissatisfied with the above order of Honourable Chief Justice, filed this Service Appeal No.04/2003.

4. Brief facts of Service Appeal No.8 of 2009 filed by appellant Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Soomro are that he was serving as Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate at various places. Adverse remarks recorded in the ACRs for the period from 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2001, 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002 and 06.04.2004 to 23.12.2004 were communicated to him. In the Performance Evaluation Report for the period 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2001 in the pen picture, it was observed that Mr. Soomro was reported to be corrupt, he was inefficient, he had no knowledge of the law and he was not fit for his post because of corruption and inefficiencies. In the ACR for the period 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002 in the pen picture late Hussain Bux Khoso, District & Sessions Judge observed that Mr. Soomro was a corrupt and inefficient judicial officer. During inspection of his Court, Members of the Bar, Taluka Ratodero, complained against him. It was further mentioned that he was arrogant and misbehaved his District & Sessions Judge. In the Performance Evaluation Report for the period 06.04.2004 to 23.12.2004, it has been observed that his integrity was doubtful and he did not enjoy good reputation. Resolution was passed against him by Sub-Bar Gambat and Ranipur. He was advised verbally as well as in writing to improve himself but without any result. Countersigning Authority agreed with the Reporting Officer. The appellant made representation against his adverse remarks. Representation dated 07.10.2008 made by Ghulam Shabbir Soomro, Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate for expunction of the remarks recorded in the ACRs for the period from 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2001, 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002 and 06.04.2004 to 23.12.2004 was considered by the Honourable Chief Justice/Authority and after hearing the appellant in person on 29.01.2009, the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.01.2009. Order is reproduced as under:-

“30.01.2009

“Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Soomro, Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, is present in connection with his representation dated 7.10.2008, which has been preferred for seeking expunction of adverse remarks in his ACRs for the period 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2001, 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002 and 06.04.2004 to 23.12.2004.

Submission of Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Soomro is that since the then reporting officer Mr. Hussain Bakhsh Khoso, who had recorded the first two adverse ACRs against him, is no more alive, he will not like to comment upon the reasons, due to which such adverse ACRS were recorded by him. In respect of third adverse ACR for the period of 6.4.2004 to 23.12.2004, submission of Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Soomro is that the statement about counseling and advice, contained in the column of pen picture, is unjustified; he has been constantly improving his performance, both in the field of law as well as integrity, but following the foot prints of the previous reporting officers, he has been penalized by recording of adverse remarks for no fault on his part. He has also made reference of detailed facts, stated in the representation, in reply to the adverse remarks contained in different columns.

Keeping in view the submissions of Mr.Ghulam Shabbir Soomro, I have perused his whole service record, which reveals that he had joined service in Judicial Department on 27.10.1998, but except for the year 1999, he has failed to maintain a good service record, particularly about his integrity and performance in the job. Mr. Hussain Bakhsh Khoso, the then District and Sessions Judge, has portrayed him in the column of pen picture as an officer, who is not enjoying good reputation and who lacks knowledge of law. In the year 2001, the position has remained the same. Similar is the position in the ACRs for the period 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2002, recorded by late Hussain Bakhsh Khoso. During the period 6.4.2004 to 23.12.2004, when Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Soomro had an opportunity of working under subordination of another reporting officer, again he could not earn good remark as to his competency and integrity. Such opinion of the reporting officer has been duly endorsed by the counter signing authority.

In my view, long standing reputation of Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Soomro, being a Judicial Officer of doubtful integrity, opined by different reporting officers, cannot be brushed aside on the basis of submissions, contained in his representation, as the reporting officers must have formed such opinion against him on the basis of discreet information and their personal knowledge and observations about him. This being the position, the representation dated 7.10.2008 is hereby rejected.”

5. Above order was communicated to the appellant through concerned District and Sessions Judge, against which the appellant filed Service Appeal No.08/2009.

6. Brief facts leading to the filing of Service Appeal No.2/2016 filed by appellant Ghulam Shabbir Soomro are that during pendency of Service Appeals Nos.4 of 2003 and 08 of 2009, against adverse remarks, show cause notice under Rule 5(3) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules 1973 was issued to him on 04.08.2011 on the ground of misconduct and corruption. Reply was furnished by him on 22.08.2011. It is further stated in the appeal that adverse entries in the ACRs for the period 22.05.2007 to 31.12.2007, 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008, 14.07.2009 to 07.10.2009 and 01.01.2010 to 28.09.2010 were communicated to Mr. Soomro and he made representation on 11.11.2011, the same was rejected. It has been alleged that Mr. Justice Mushir Alam, the then Chief Justice had heard the appellant on 28.09.2012 and according to him, show cause notice was vacated by the then Chief Justice. It may be observed that no such order is available on record. Appellant has also failed to produce its copy. Show cause notice was issued to him on 17.06.2013 on the basis of adverse ACRs as mentioned above on the basis of persistent reputation of being corrupt Judicial Officer. Appellant submitted reply to the show cause notice. Plea has been raised that Honourable Authorized Officer did not consider the submissions of the appellant and recommended to the Authority/Chief Justice for imposing major penalty of the dismissal from service of the appellant. On the recommendation of the Authorized Officer, it is stated that Authority/Chief Justice issued final show cause notice to the appellant. He submitted the reply but it was not considered and he was dismissed from service on 26.08.2015. The appellant had also filed review, but without success.

7. The appellant has called in question order dated 26.08.2015 in Service Appeal No.02/2016, whereby major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon him. Order dated 26.08.2015, passed by the Honourable Chief Justice/Authority is reproduced as under:-

“26.08.2015

Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Soomro, Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate was served with the Show Cause Notice dated 17.06.2013 under Rule 5(3) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules 1973 on the basis of his Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) right from the year 2000 to 2010 n account of his persistent reputation of being an inefficient and corrupt officer, wherein he had been called upon to show cause as to why one of the penalties prescribed under Rule 4(1) of the aforementioned Rules may not be imposed upon him. In response thereof, the Judicial Officer filed his detailed reply. He was also awarded an opportunity of personal hearing non 07.03.2015. The Honourable Authorized Officer, after hearing the Officer and considering his Performance Evaluation Reports and other aspect of the matter that his representation / review with regard to expunction of adverse remarks contained in his PERs were rejected by the Honourable respective Chief Justices, came to the conclusion that the charges leveled against him stand established. He was then served with the Final Show Cause Notice under the provisions of Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules 1973, reply thereof was furnished by him. In response to the Final Show Cause Notice, the Judicial Officer was also afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, wherein he sought an opportunity to improve and change himself with the assurance that no further complaint would be received in future. The Honourable Authorized Officer, after hearing the Officer and going through his submissions, arrived at the same conclusion as taken earlier and recommended imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service vide his order dated 25.07.2015.

2. Based on the recommendations of the Hon’ble Authorized Officer, the Judicial Officer was served with the Final Show Cause Notice, which was duly replied. He was also offered an opportunity of personal hearing on 24.08.2015.

3. The Judicial Officer states that he was not conveyed the result of personal hearing that was taken place before his Lordship Mr. Justice Mushir Alam, wherein he took special oath. He prays that an opportunity may be given to him to improve and change himself with the assurance that no further complaint would be received in future.

4. The officer has been reported as inefficient and corrupt having doubtful integrity by the several District & Sessions Judges in their respective reports. His service record also reflects that he is an incompetent and corrupt officer having doubtful integrity. During his tenure of more than 17 years, he has not been recommended for next promotion due to his persistent reputation of being an inefficient, incompetent and corrupt officer. A Judicial Officer should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary. He should also be true and faithful to the Constitution and the law, uphold the course of justice by abiding with the provisions of the Constitution and the law and should acquire and maintain professional competence. A Judicial Officer or any public servant by very nature of his office is expected to be honest and no leniency should be given to those who bring bad reputation to the institution. Hence, in the circumstances of the case, the request of the Judicial Officer seeking a chance to improve and change himself, is not justified. Such a request was also placed by him before the Hon’ble Authorized Officer, which was not acceded to and nothing new has come on record, which may compel me to take a different view. No legal infirmity or factual incorrectness has been pointed out in the order passed by the Hon’ble Authorized Officer on 25.07.2015 recommending his dismissal from service as provided in Rule 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules 1973.

5. For the above reasons, I am in agreement with the Hon’ble Authorized Officer that the charges of inefficiency, incompetency and corruption leveled against Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Soomro stand proved beyond any doubt rendering himself liable to imposition of a major penalty. I also find myself in agreement that in the circumstances of the case, a penalty of dismissal from service would be the most appropriate course. Accordingly, I impose major penalty of “dismissal from service” as provided in Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules 1973 with immediate effect.”

8. The appellant Ghulam Shabbir Soomro has raised the following contentions:-

i. The adverse remarks recorded in ACRs of the appellant were not supported by any material.

ii. The adverse remarks having been recorded without any verbal or written counseling same were liable to be expunged.

iii. The reporting as well as countersigning officers were obliged to consider the ACRs objectively and not subjectively.

iv. ACRs of the appellant were not written according to mandatory instructions.

v. That District & Sessions Judges recorded adverse ACRs against the appellant for the mala fide reasons.

vi. That firstly he was not promoted and on the same charge, he has been dismissed from service. It is the case of double jeopardy

vii. Each individual has a right to be dealt with in accordance with law.

viii. Lastly, submitted that no regular inquiry was conducted though controversial facts were involved.

Appellant in support of his submissions has placed reliance upon the cases of Ghulam Fraeed versus Divisional Canal Officer, Westerns Bar Canal Division Thingi, District Vehari (2007 YLR 2179), Moulana Atta-ur-Rehman versus Al-Hajj Sardar Umar Farooq and others (PLD 2008 SC 663), Muhammad Haleem and another versus General Manager (Operation) Pakistan Railways Headquarters Lahore and others (2009 SCMR 339), Tehseen Mazhar and 24 others versus Vice Chancellor, University of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 2008 LAHORE 19), Muhammad Yousuf and 2 others versus The State (PLD 2007 Kar. 405).

9. Mr. Ziauddin Junejo, Assistant Advocate General Sindh entered appearance and controverted the contentions as canvased by the appellant and submitted that the instruction about counseling was directory in nature not mandatory. He has further submitted that appellant has not been able to establish malice or bias or prejudice against any reporting officer or countersigning officer. It is argued that no controversial facts or questions were involved for holding of the regular inquiry. Lastly contended that there was sufficient material against the petitioner in the shape of adverse ACRs to dispense with the regular inquiry. Lastly argued that 5 different District & Sessions Judges recorded adverse remarks against the appellant. Learned A.A.G. opposed the appeals.

10. We have carefully heard appellant in person and learned Assistant Advocate General Sindh and perused the relevant record.

11. Record reflects that the appellant was given full opportunity of making representations and presenting his case and view points before the competent Authority who after giving him a chance of hearing passed the impugned orders. As such, mere delay in sending the adverse remarks would not result in miscarriage of justice. Appellant has further argued that all the adverse ACRs were signed by the countersigning Authority on the same date. It is not illegality and contention is without any legal force. It is also contended that late Hussain Bux Khoso, District & Sessions Judge had malice against him. Such allegation has not been substantiated by cogent material. Allegation of malafide requires proof of a high order owing to its serious nature and the burden of proof lies heavily on the person who makes it as held in the case of Ch. Shabbir Hussain and others vs. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others (PLD 2004 S.C 191), relevant portion is reproduced as under:

“The allegation of mala fide can be easily made than proved. It is by now firmly settled that the allegation of mala fide requires proof of a high order 1 owing to its serious nature and the burden of proof lies heavily on the person who makes it. In this context the observations made in Federation of Pakistan v. Saeed Ahmed Khan (PLD 1974 SC 151) may be reproduced hereunder:;‑‑

"Mala fides is one of the most difficult things to prove and the onus is entirely' upon the person alleging mala fides to establish it, because, there is, to start with, a presumption of regularity with regard to all official acts, and until that presumption is rebutted, the action cannot be challenged merely upon a vague allegation of mala fides. As has been pointed out by this Court in the case of Government of West Pakistan v. Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri (PLD 1969 SC 14), mala fides must be pleaded with particularity, and once one kind of mala fide is alleged, no one should be allowed to adduce proof of any other kind of mala fides nor should any enquiry be launched upon merely on the basis of vague and indefinite allegations, nor should the person alleging mala fides be allowed a roving enquiry into the files of the Government for the purposes of fishing out some kind of a case."

12. The contention of appellant that countersigning Authority was bound to record reasons for recording the adverse remarks against the appellant is without any legal force. It is observed that countersigning Authority/Chief Justice always remains cognizant with the performance of Judicial Officer being his appellate and revisional authority against judicial orders passed by him from time to time, therefore, he had a better chance to assess the performance as well as conduct of Judicial Officer which he can undertake independently. District Judges and Honourable Chief Justice are the only officers, who can accurately assess the work and conduct of subordinate Judge serving under them. They are best judges of his work, conduct and character. The basis of their opinion can be very extensive depending on their own observation, general reputation and such other material which may have been brought to their notice. Opinion is formed by the superior officers on the basis of conglomeration of events too minute to be noticed individually and recorded separately. The total impact of such events, however, brings into focus a clear image of the persons before them. The District & Sessions Judge and Honourable Chief Justice cannot therefore, be asked to produce material on which they based their opinion.

13. For the aforesaid facts and reasons Service Appeal Nos. 04/2003 and 08/2009 are without merit, which are accordingly dismissed.

14. As regards, the question of the dismissal of his service on the charge of adverse ACRs/corruption is concerned, Mr. Soomro vehemently contended that it was a serious matter and it should not have been finally disposed of without holding a regular inquiry into the charge of corruption. Appellant submitted that adverse ACRs were recorded by District and Sessions Judges with mala fides. Question, whether any major punishment could be imposed upon any civil servant without holding inquiry would depend upon the facts of each case. Authorized Officer is empowered to dispense with inquiry but he is required to pass order in writing to inform the accused of the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and grounds of action and to give him reasonable opportunity of showing cause against action proposed as held in the case of GHULAM MUSTAFA SHAHZAD versus LAHORE HIGH COURT through Registrar and others (2007 SCMR 1786), relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

“9. Having examined the case of the petitioner from every angle and given our anxious thought to the submission made at the bar, we are of the considered view that the Officer Authorized/Authority are fully empowered to opt whether to hold a regular enquiry or not depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The case in hand having been fairly and equitably dealt with by the High Court as well as the Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court.”

15. In the case of Mst. SAMINA NAZEER versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (W) KHANEWAL and others (2004 SCMR 290) it is held that competent authority could dispense with holding of regular inquiry if allegations leveled against the civil servant had been proved on the basis of documentary evidence. Relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

“4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner. The judgment impugned has been perused and record examined. The learned Service Tribunal after having gone through the entire record has concluded with cogent reasoning that the petitioner’s name was not included in the merit list of selected candidates pertaining to Markiz Burewala and besides that her transfer order and joining report were also fake and fabricated. The factum of fraud and forgery being question of fact has been determined by the Department on the basis of relevant record, affirmed by the learned Service Tribunal after having gone through the entire record, hardly warrants any interference. We are not persuaded to agree with the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that in absence of regular inquiry the services of petitioner could not have been terminated for the reason that the Competent Authority can dispense with holding of such inquiry under rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975. The allegations leveled against the petitioner have been proved on the basis of documentary evidence and therefore, any regular inquiry was not necessary.”

15. In the case of Muhammad Aslam, Ex-Deputy Director (Audit) District Govt. Lahore Region, Lahore versus Auditor-General Of Pakistan, Islamabad (2013 SCMR 1904), it is held as under:-

“8. The counsel for the appellant in the first place has contended that no regular inquiry was conducted in the case of the appellant and he was removed from service after issuance of show cause notice. The appellant has not disputed the factum of entering into plea bargain, which was documented as a matter of record. In such like cases where the documents on the basis of which departmental proceedings have been initiated are not in dispute, the competent authority can dispense with the regular inquiry, as no material is required to be collected for proceeding against the delinquent officer. Likewise, the appellant cannot take a plea that he was deprived of opportunity to rebut the charge when the documents on the basis of which departmental proceedings are initiated against the appellant have not been denied.”

16. It may not be out of context to point out that appellant was duly informed that competent Authority had decided to dispense with regular inquiry on the basis of his adverse ACRs for the period from 2000 to 2010. Those adverse ACRs were written by five different District & Sessions Judges, which showed reputation of Mr. Soomro as corrupt officer since joining of service. Such allegations against him were made known to him and he was afforded reasonable opportunity of personal hearing by the competent Authority. We are satisfied that Authority before passing impugned order of dismissal from his service had duly complied with provision of law and principles of natural justice. Thus, appellant cannot claim that he was condemned unheard. Adverse ACRs on the basis of which departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant are not in dispute. Competent Authority has rightly dispensed with regular inquiry as no additional material was required to be collected for proceeding against the appellant.

17. All the civil servants are bound to be honest, having 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 as held in the case of Shabbir Hussain v. Registrar Lahore High Court (PLD 2004 SC 191). Relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

“5. 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 of 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 ownselves 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 or 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.”

18. As regards to the contention of double jeopardy, we are not inclined to accept the contention of appellant as Section 403, Cr.PC reads as under:-

“403. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence : (1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall whiles such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not W liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under Section 236, or for which he might have been convicted under Section 237.

(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried for any distinct offence for which separate charge might have been made against him on the former trial under Section 235, sub-section (1).

(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences: which together, with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.

(4) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequent charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which fie may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.

(5) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, or Section 188 of this Code.”

Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which reads as under:

“No person:

(a) shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once; or

(b) shall, when accused of an offence, be compelled to be witness against himself.

19. In the present case, on the basis of adverse ACRs, appellant was not promoted. Subsequently, on the basis of the adverse ACRs/remarks, after hearing the appellant, he was dismissed from service by the Competent Authority. Therefore, above contention of Mr. Soomro is misconceived.

20. We have minutely examined the ACRs/service record of appellant. Adverse remarks recorded in the ACRs for the period from 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2001, 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002 and 06.04.2004 to 23.12.2004 were communicated to him. In the Performance Evaluation Report for the period 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2001 in the pen picture, it was observed that Mr. Soomro was reported to be corrupt, he was inefficient, he had no knowledge of the law and he was not fit for his post because of the complaints. Members of Sub-Bar Taluka Gambat and Ranipur complained about his initegrity. In the ACR for the period 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002 in the pen picture late Hussain Bux Khoso, District & Sessions Judge, Larkana observed that Mr. Soomro was a corrupt and inefficient judicial officer. During inspection of his Court, Members of the Bar, Ratodero, complained against him. It was further mentioned that he was arrogant and misbehaved his District & Sessions Judge. In the Performance Evaluation Report for the period 06.04.2004 to 23.12.2004, it has been observed that his integrity was doubtful and he did not enjoy good reputation. He was advised verbally as well as in writing to improve himself but without any result. Countersigning Authority agreed with the Reporting Officer. The appellant made representation against his adverse remarks. Representation dated 07.10.2008 made by Ghulam Shabbir Soomro, Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate for expunction of the remarks recorded in the ACRs for the period from 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2001, 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002 and 06.04.2004 to 23.12.2004 was considered by the Honourable Chief Justice/Authority and after hearing the appellant in person on 29.01.2009, the same was rejected vide order dated 30.01.2009. Those adverse ACRs were written by five different District & Sessions Judges, for the period from 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2001, 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002 and 06.04.2004 to 23.12.2004, which showed reputation of Mr. Soomro as corrupt officer since the joining of service. The appellant could not satisfy us about any mala fide on the part of 05 different District & Sessions Judges who had recorded adverse remarks against him.

21. Chief Justice has extensively examined the service record of appellant and perused order passed by the Authorized Officer, rightly came to conclusion as under:

“4. The officer has been reported as inefficient and corrupt having doubtful integrity by the several District & Sessions Judges in their respective reports. His service record also reflects that he is an incompetent and corrupt officer having doubtful integrity. During his tenure of service of more than 17 years, he has not been recommended for next promotion due to his persistent reputation of being an inefficient, incompetent and corrupt officer. A Judicial Officer should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary. He should also be true and faithful to the Constitution and the law, uphold the course of justice by abiding with the provisions of the Constitution and the law and should acquire and maintain professional competence. A Judicial Officer or any public servant by very nature of his office is expected to be honest and no leniency should be given to those who bring bad reputation to the institution. Hence, in the circumstances of the case, the request of the Judicial Officer seeking a chance to improve and change himself, is not justified. Such a request was also placed by him before the Honourable Authorized Officer, which was not acceded to and nothing new has come on record, which may compel me to take a different view. No legal infirmity or factual incorrectness has been pointed out in the order passed by the Hon’ble Authorized Officer on 25.07.2015 recommending his dismissal from service as provided in Rule 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973.

5. For the above reasons, I am in agreement with the Honourable Authorized Officer that the charges of inefficiency, incompetency and corruption leveled against Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Soomro stand proved beyond any doubt rendering himself liable to imposition of a major penalty. I also find myself in agreement that in the circumstances of the case, a penalty of dismissal from service would be the most appropriate course. Accordingly, I impose major penalty of “dismissal from service” as provided in Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 with immediate effect.

22. We have examined the case of the appellant from every angle and have given our anxious thought to the submissions made by him. We have also examined ACRs/service record of appellant for the period from 2000 to 2010. The allegations leveled against appellant have been proved on the basis of documentary evidence/adverse remarks. Therefore, regular inquiry was not necessary. In view of aforesaid facts and legal position, no case for interference is made out. We find no merit in Service Appeal No. 02/2016, the same is dismissed.

CHAIRMAN

MEMBER

Gulsher/PS