MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus CHIEF JUSTICE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
ORDER
ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.---- Appellant Muhammad Sharif has filed Service Appeal No.3 of 2016 against respondent/High Court of Sindh, through Registrar against the adverse remarks in appellant's Annual Confidential Report for the periods from 10.09.2012 to 31.12.2012 and 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014 given to him by Mr. Justice Irshad All Shah, as he then was District and Sessions Judge, Ghotki and Mr. Mahbob Ally Jawahery, District and Sessions Judge, Ghotki, respectively. Both the reporting officer in the said Annual Confidential Report rated the integrity of the appellant as below average and poor respectively and same were countersigned by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. These adverse remarks were communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 02.07.2015.
2. Appellant filed representations both dated 24.07.2015 against adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports for the abovementioned periods before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, who after hearing the appellant rejected the same on 16.01.2016 and said order was communicated to him vide letter dated 26.01.2016.
3. Thereafter, aforesaid appeal has been filed by the appellant. Notice was issued to the respondent as well as Advocate General, Sindh. Comments have been filed by the respondent and same has been perused.
4. The appellant mainly contended that he has been compulsory retired from the service on 14.10.2016 and according to him, presently he is a practicing lawyer, therefore, he could not carry the stigma on his service record. It is further contended that adverse entries have been made in his ACRs by the District and Sessions Judge(s) without any material or serious complaints against him. He further submits that the ACRs received by him for the said periods on 03.07.2015 after the considerable delay in violation of rules and the Chief Justice has not properly appreciated/considered the grounds of representation. According to him, he has been victimized by Mr. Imam Bux Soomro, as he then was Member Inspection Team and some other officers, who were inimical to him, therefore, the adverse remarks were given to him. During the course of arguments, he has taken to us towards various confidential reports available in the file, which has been produced by the Assistant Registrar, Confidential and has contended that some of the ACRs of different period of his career were expunged. He further submits that during the relevant period, he has not been received any show cause notice from Sessions Judge(s) nor he was ever called for counseling. He further submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and against the principle of Natural Justice, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the law. During the course of arguments, he has also reiterated the same facts and grounds which he has urged in the memo of appeal and prayed that this appeal may be allowed by expunge the adverse remarks recorded in his ACRs.
5. Mr. Abdul Jaleel Zubedi, learned Assistant Advocate General, Sindh has supported the impugned order by arguing that the impugned order is perfect in law and on facts and further submits that the Hon'ble Chief Justice on the basis of sufficient evidence had rejected the representation made by the appellant against the adverse remarks recorded in his ACRs. He further submits that the appellant had already been compulsory retired from service and this appeal according to him, has become infructuous. Lastly, he submitted that this appeal is without merit and liable to be dismissed.
6. We have carefully heard the appellant and learned Assistant Advocate General, Sindh as well as perused the relevant record/ACRs, which have been produced by the Assistant Registrar, Confidential Branch.
7. As per record, appellant joined service on 09.04.1996 as direct Senior Civil Judge and was compulsory retired from service on 14.10.2016 after about twenty (20) years without any promotion. Mr. Irshad All Shah, as he then was District and Sessions Judge, Ghotki in the performance evaluation report for the period with effect from 10.09.2012 to 31.12.2012 in the pen picture has mentioned to appellant as "an average officer quality and quantity wise, whereas, in the integrity column, the appellant described as dishonest officer". Moreover, Mr. Mah bob Ally Jawahery, District and Sessions Judge, Ghotki in the performance evaluation report for the period with effect from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014 in the pen picture described the appellant as "no good quality, whereas, in the integrity column, appellant was described as corrupt officer and there is no chance of his improvement".
8. As observed above, the appellant made representations for expunction of adverse remarks to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the same has been rejected by detailed order dated 16.01.2016. For the sake of convenience, it would be proper to reproduce the said order, which reads as under:-
"Mr. Muhammad Sharif Buriro, Senior Civil Judge present in person.
Heard. The Judicial Officer has sought expunction of adverse remarks reported in the A.C.R. for the period 70.09.2072 to 31.72.2012 and 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014. perusal of ACR for the first mentioned period reflects that the Reporting Officer have evaluated "integrity" of the Judicial Officer as "Below Average" and for fitness of promotion he was reported as "Unlikely to progress further" in the ACR for the second mentioned period throughout the Reporting Officer has evaluated the Judicial Officer as "Poor" and "Below Average" and for fitness for promotion has recorded "Not yet fit for promotion."
I have heard the Judicial Officer and have perused the relevant papers/ record. The officer right from the beginning has been given adverse remarks with regard to his honesty and integrity. In the ACR for the first mentioned period the Reporting Officer reported the "Integrity" of the Judicial Officer as "Below Average", counselling was also made and Reporting Officer has reported "Less care the counselling" so also in the ACR for the year 2014 Reporting Officer reported "Time and again officer was directed to avoid corruption, but he has not improved". Both the Reporting Officer had the occasion of watching and over-seeing the behavior of Judicial Officer and their observation and remarks cannot be lightly ignored in absence of cogent and plausible material. 1 have also enquired about the integrity of this Judicial Officer from my brothers on the Bench, especially, those who have come from the District Judiciary, none spoke well about him specially his integrity. No case is made out for expunction of the adverse remarks and his representations stand rejected."
9. As observed above that after induction in the service, the appellant could not get promotion till his compulsory retirement. This aspect also shows that there was something fishy in service career of the appellant and this aspect also addressed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice while rejecting the representations of the appellant.
10. It is pertinent to mention here that all the civil servants are bound to be honest, having unblemished integrity yet the ,Judicial Officers are supposed to excel in the trait of character in view of the scared and sensitive nature of their duties and owing to the pivotal that justice occupies in Islam as held in the case of Shabbir Hussain v. Registrar, Lahore High Court reported as (PLD 2004 SC 191).
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.08.2018 passed Civil Petitions Nos.526-K, 527-K and 530-K of 2018 (Ghulam Shabbir Soomro a The Honorable Chief Justice, High Court of Sindh through its Registrar and another) has held as under:-
" .more so in view of the fact that Chief Justice who always keeps a close eye on the conduct and performance of his judicial officers himself remains aware of their conduct and performance, as such, the Chief Justice also acquire some personal knowledge of the conduct and performance of his judicial officers, and the record of service including their ACRs also remain in his view and if the misconduct and poor performance of the officer is so glaring as in the present case, and where the officer has a persistent reputation of being corrupt, inefficient and incompetent, there is hardly any need of holding any regular inquiry. We therefore, do not find any justification in interfering with the impugned judgment, and would therefore, refuse leave to appeal in all the above petition. The petitions thus 'stand dismissed."
12. During the course of arguments, we have specifically asked the question from the appellant why he could not get the promotion during his tenure of service career, which was consists of about twenty (20) years, he has no satisfactory answer with him. As far as the objection by the appellant that the adverse remarks were received by him after considerable period and adverse ACRs were given to him by the Sessions Judge(s) at the instance of Mr. Imam Bux Soomro and others. In our view, these are no grounds for expunction of adverse remarks for the reasons that the ACRs were communicated to the appellant after countersigning the ACRs by Hon'ble Chief .Justice/authority well in time. Even otherwise, the appellant has failed to produce any case law on this point. As far as, the allegation against Mr. Soomro and others is concerned, no allegation against Mr. Soomro has been mentioned in the memo of appeal. During the course of arguments, we have specifically asked question from the appellant that when the adverse remarks were given to him at the instance of Mr. Soomro, then why he has not mentioned such fact in the memo of appeal. He has failed to give any explanation in this regard. Apparently, this ground has been taken by the appellant as afterthoughts. We have also considered the other grounds as mentioned in the memo of appeal, but did not find any merits on it.
13. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the appellant could not point out any prejudice or bias on the part of concerned District and Sessions Judge(s) at that time. Honorable Chief Justice after hearing the appellant and looking to the record rightly rejected the representations. We, therefore, do not find any justification in interfering with the impugned order. The appellant has already been compulsory retired from service on 14.10.2016. In fact, appeal has become infructuous. We are not inclined to allow the appeal, the same is without merit and is dismissed.
14. It may be mentioned here that this appeal was heard today at length by us in open Court in the early part of the day and after hearing the parties, the same was dismissed in open Court and these are the reasons thereof.
ZC/M-150/Sindh Appeal dismissed.