Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 57 SERVICE TRIBUNAL FOR MEMBERS OF SUBORDINATE JUDICIARYBookmark this Case GULZAR

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 57 SERVICE TRIBUNAL FOR MEMBERS OF SUBORDINATE JUDICIARYBookmark this Case GULZAR HUSSAIN VS The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE R. 2(e)---Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991), S. 5---Judicial officer---Misconduct---Dismissal from service converted to reduction to three lower stages in pay scale---Interaction of Judicial Officer with the litigant(s)---Penalty and magnitude of the misconduct committed, commensuration of---Allegation upon Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate was of receiving illegal gratification for dismissal of the bail application he was hearing---Validity---Oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution showed that the prosecution though had established link of appellant-judge with the complainant, but had failed to establish the charges of receiving of illegal gratification or other gains and criminal intimidation---Record of as many as 96 incoming and outgoing calls exchanged between appellant and complainant/litigant was revealed---Judge could not develop terms/liaison with the litigants---Ethics prevalent globally specifically prohibited the judges from maintaining any contact with the parties appearing in their Courts---Speaking privately to the litigants by a judge, even when the conversation was on an unrelated topic, was against the propriety of his office---Practice of a Judge having contact with the litigant through social media was also deprecated---In the present case, interaction of the appellant (being a judicial officer) with litigant was against service discipline---Such conduct unbecoming of a Judicial Officer came within the definition of 'misconduct' stipulated in R. 2(e) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999---Authority could, in its discretion, award major or minor penalty but this power must be exercised reasonably which was also justifiable---Penalty should commensurate with the magnitude of the misconduct committed---Extreme penalty for an act of a lesser degree would definitely defeat the reformatory concept of punishment in administration of justice---While punishing an employee found guilty of misconduct, the competent authority was required to take into account, inter alia, the gravity of misconduct found proved and its impact on the organization/department---As allegations of receiving illegal gratification and criminal intimidation have not been established against the appellant and he was also ready not to claim back benefits, therefore, major penalty of removal from service did not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct---Tribunal converted the penalty of dismissal from service into major penalty of reduction to three lower stages in pay-scale of the appellant---Appeal was partly allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 57 SERVICE TRIBUNAL FOR MEMBERS OF SUBORDINATE JUDICIARYBookmark this Case GULZAR HUSSAIN vs The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE R — 2024 PLC(CS) 57 SERVICE TRIBUNAL FOR MEMBERS OF SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC