MUZAFFARABAD: The Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal has upheld the removal from service of a district and sessions judge who was found guilty of gross misconduct, including flouting binding orders of the Supreme Court and making false statements before it.

The two-member tribunal, comprising Justice Sardar Muhammad Ejaz Khan (Chairman) and Justice Chaudhary Khalid Rasheed (Member) of the AJK High Court, on Friday dismissed inliminethe appeal filed by Raja Imtiaz Ahmed, a Kotli-based judicial officer, against the July 11 notification whereby he was removed from service.

The order of removal was passed by the competent authority on the direction of the AJK Supreme Court, which in July declared Mr Ahmed guilty of willful disobedience of its order, deliberate misstatement before the apex court, repeated misconduct in narcotics cases and disregard for judicial hierarchy and discipline.

The apex court had also sentenced him to three days of simple imprisonment.

According to the record, the Supreme Court had in January 2023 declined bail to an accused in a narcotics case and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within six months. However, Mr Ahmed, as the presiding officer of the trial court, acquitted the accused within a month under Section 265-K CrPC, prompting contempt proceedings against him.

When confronted, the judge initially denied having issued the acquittal order, which was later confirmed through official record, leading the Supreme Court to hold that his misstatement “struck at the very foundation of judicial integrity.”

An independent inquiry conducted by Justice Syed Shahid Bahar of the AJK High Court also found Mr Ahmed guilty of misconduct. Despite being given an opportunity to defend himself, he merely tendered a “bare and unqualified apology,” which the apex court held insufficient.

In its ruling, authored by Justice Rasheed, the tribunal noted that Mr Ahmed had faced multiple inquiries during his 24 years of service but had repeatedly escaped with minor penalties. “Instead of mending his ways, he continued his misconduct and ultimately disobeyed the order of the Supreme Court,” the judgment observed, terming his conduct “a stigma on the face of the judicial system.”

Rejecting the appellant’s plea for leniency on account of long service, the tribunal held that judicial officers were expected to demonstrate exemplary conduct and were not entitled to any concession when guilty of gross misconduct.

It added that the competent authority had already taken a relatively lenient view by ordering removal rather than dismissal, which leaves him eligible for some future service.

“The judicial power is a sacred trust… A judicial officer who commits misconduct does not deserve any lenient view; rather, he should be made an example for others,” the tribunal concluded.

Published in Dawn, September 13th, 2025