PHC defends sacking of judges

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has said the judges were sacked recently due to consecutive three years adverse Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and having a persistent reputation of being corrupt.

The PHC issued a statement after the sacked judges told a press conference that there was no evidence about their indiscipline and they had been removed on the basis of hearsay. The PHC sacked four judges of the district judiciary on the charges of corruption and misconduct on August 17. They included three additional and district and sessions judges and one female civil judge. As per the notifications, the competent authority removed three additional district and sessions judges (BPS-21) — Aurangzeb Khan, Naeem Iqbal and Shakeelur Rehman and female civil judge Saima Irfan from service.

The resignation of civil judge Johar Ijaz Ali Shah was accepted and departmental proceedings against him were dropped after he requested to be allowed to tender unconditional resignation.“All the four judges who were removed from service had earned adverse ACRs for the year 2015, 2016 and 2017, including the judicial officer who had resigned. Despite adverse entries, communicated to them, they failed to guard their reputation and persistently reported being corrupt,” the PHC claimed in the statement issued through Assistant Protocol Officer, Hina Shakeel on Monday. It was stated that the PHC administrative committee in its unanimous decision recommended departmental proceedings against them. “Their counselling was done before the action, but they did not improve. Hence, they were served with a show-cause notice under Rule 7 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2011. After receiving their replies they were personally heard patiently and every detail was discussed with them,” the high court claimed, adding that they were apprised of the record against them and given an opportunity to contradict it.

Rejecting the claims of the judicial officers that there existed no evidence of their indiscipline, it said, they were treated fairly and in accordance with law. In 2017, it said, 13 judicial officers, who earned adverse ACRs for consecutive three years and having a persistent reputation of being corrupt, were also dismissed from the service by adopting the same method. It said that the case of the present judicial officers was on par with them; therefore, they were treated alike. The PHC explanation came after a press conference of the sacked judges.

They had asked the PHC chief justice to review their removal from service claiming there was no evidence of their indiscipline. The sacked additional district and sessions judges including Naeem Iqbal, Aurangzeb Khan and Shakeelur Rehman at a news conference held judiciary in high esteem and wanted justice through a fair trial.

They claimed that they had not received show-cause notices and also not violated discipline.

The sacked judges had also claimed that members of the judiciary were delivering justice to the people but ironically, they were denied justice. They had said they had filed a petition with the court against their suspension but even then, they were sacked in undue haste. The sacked judges had claimed that the high court had delayed hearing into their petition and that was why they moved the Supreme Court to get orders for early hearing but to no avail. The former judges said all accused and even suspected terrorists got an opportunity of a fair trial but they were not even told about their wrongdoings.