December 17, 2002	Tuesday	Shawwal 12, 1423

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

MUZAFFARABAD, Dec 16: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir has dismissed the leave to appeal petition of a sacked judicial officer against the rejection by the Council of the High Court Judges of the prime minister’s decision regarding his reinstatement.

The single-member bench, comprising Chief Justice (CJ) Mohammad Yunus Surakhvi, held that removal of Abdul Rahim Zubair Butt, family judge in BPS-18, was an administrative decision of the High Court and no administrative decision, either taken by the chief justice or by the council of judges, could be challenged in the Supreme Court in the latter’s appellant jurisdiction.

Mr Butt was removed by the High Court CJ, Syed Manzoor Hussain Gillani, under Section 3(1) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001, on Aug 21, this year under charges of misconduct. He filed a representation before the premier who setting aside the CJ’s decision reinstated him on Nov 2.

The sacked judge submitted his joining report in the High Court on Nov 4, but instead of taking any decision on the report, the CJ placed the matter before the council of judges, which unanimously held that since the premier was not the competent authority in relation to the court employees, he had no authority to set aside the order passed by the CJ and therefore his (PM’s) order to that effect could not be acted upon.

Mr Butt filed an application for leave to appeal in the SC against the decision of the council, wherein he made the CJ and the judges respondent. However, the petition was dismissed by the apex court.

“This is an administrative affair dealt with in administrative manner,” the CJ said, adding that no law or rule could be framed against the spirit of Section 46 of the Constitution, which empowers the High Court to have administrative control, including disciplinary matters as well.

Section 46 says that the High Court shall be the superintending and controlling authority of all other courts which are subordinate to it.

Justice Surakhvi also took serious stock of impleading the HC CJ or other judges by name, and observed that it was unbecoming and unwarranted.

“The Supreme and the High courts are the institutions of extraordinary constitutional importance and significance. Unbecoming language attributing malafide and capriciousness against them is against the code of conduct of the advocates and unbecoming of the petitioner who alleges himself to be a judicial officer,” he observed.