KARACHI: Tribunal upholds dismissal of civil judge
By Our Staff Reporter
KARACHI, May 31: The Sindh Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal upheld the dismissal of a senior civil judge for gross misconduct and inefficiency.
Samad Saalim Ansari was issued preliminary and final show cause notices in December 2001 and February 2002 by the authorized officer, Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed, the then senior puisne judge of the Sindh High Court. He was personally heard on both the occasions. Finding his written and verbal explanation unsatisfactory, Justice Ahmed recommended the judicial officer’s removal from service and the competent authority, Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, the then CJ of the SHC, ordered accordingly in January 2003 after giving him personal hearing.
The judicial officer filed an appeal with the Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal through Advocate Kamal Azfar. The tribunal, which consisted of Justice Mohammad Moosa K. Leghari as chairman and Justice Khilji Arif Hussain as member, announced its verdict upholding the dismissal on Wednesday.
The appellant’s counsel argued that there was no full-fledged inquiry and that recourse to the shorter procedure involving show cause notices without recording of evidence was not justified. Defending the impugned order, the advocate-general maintained that the allegations and charge were evidently clear and borne out by record. It was not necessary always and in all circumstances to hold a detailed inquiry.
Among the allegations was a writ of possession issued by the civil judge in his capacity as rent controller in favour of a landlord, though the high court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction had issued an order summoning the record and proceedings of the case following an appeal by the tenant. The judicial officer was informed of the high court order by the appellant tenant, yet he proceeded to issue the writ of possession to the landlord in execution of his eviction order.
In another instance, the judicial officer entertained a suit manifestly beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction and granted an ex parte ad interim order in favour of the plaintiff and against the Trading Corporation of Pakistan. He returned the plaint when the matter came to the notice of the high court but by then the plaintiff had already enjoyed the fruits of the interim injunction.
The tribunal held that there was no need for an inquiry as the law authorized the competent authority in this behalf. The authorized officer and the competent authority acted judiciously, fairly, impartially and without any bias. The appellant was afforded adequate opportunity to clear himself but he ‘miserably failed’ to controvert the charge. The tribunal referred to a 1993 Supreme Court judgment and said ‘the nature of proof required depends on the facts and circumstances of each case’. Judges and judicial officers were not only expected but required to demonstrate unimpeachable character, it said.
