Ex-judge approaches Service Tribunal against forced retirement

PESHAWAR: A former judge has approached the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal against his compulsory retirement by the Peshawar High Court.

Muhammad Azim Khan Afridi, the appellant, was serving as district and sessions judge at the time of his forced retirement about four months ago.

The competent authority, which is chief justice of Peshawar High Court (PHC), registrar and inquiry officer Justice Lal Jan Khattak were made parties to the writ petition.

About the facts of the case, it was stated that a complaint had been filed by one Saifur Rehman on account of certain dubious allegations and as such comments were sought from the appellant. “Thereafter the appellant was served with the statement of allegations and charge-sheet. A former judge Justice Asadullah Khan Chamkani was appointed inquiry officer. The complaint though then remained dormant since 2013, suddenly the appellant had to face suspension on April 4, 2018, for reasons known to the competent authority,” it was stated in the appeal.

It said during the interval the appellant was issued notice on April 14, 2018 directing him to appear before the inquiry officer in the case pending since 2013.

The appeal said that an inquiry report was submitted on September 14, 2018 before the competent authority, exonerating the appellant from all charges under E&D Rules. However, the inquiry officer suggested issuance of warning on the administrative side instead of censure on account of the fourth charge.

“Despite extensive and exhaustive findings recorded by the inquiry officer, the competent authority deliberately went astray and as such took notice of the comments minus evidence submitted by the appellant regarding the network of money launderers which the appellant had recorded as judge Special Court of Control of Narcotics Substance, Peshawar,” it said. It added that for deliberately concealing activities of the said network of criminals, the competent authority took a dishonest view that the appellant had ridiculed the judges of higher judiciary through articles and at the same time attributed misreading and non-reading to the inquiry officer, who happens to be a judge of the high court, so as to make sure discord with the recommendations available on record.

It said the competent authority recorded that the inquiry report in respect of fourth ground of charge is random with no clue either to clear the appellant or hold him guilty for it in explicit terms and on the other hand opting for a self-styled formula determining the culpability of the present appellant.

It said the competent authority emphasised over the yardstick for evaluation of evidence of proof, having self-styled formula, allowing three grounds of charge sheet to be proved by the complainant, whereas the fourth head of the charge though taken from the complainant but according to the competent authority, the same had to be proved departmentally so as to make out a case for the complainant.

“For doing so and for meeting with the desires of the complainant, a cross-examination of the complainant was done by the competent authority so as to punish the present appellant by disagreeing with the inquiry report,” the appellant Azim Khan Afridi claimed in the appeal.

In the grounds of the appeal, it said that the impugned notification of compulsory retirement issued on October 11, 2018 is contrary to law, well-settled jurisprudence in field and practice.

The court was requested that on acceptance of this service appeal, the impugned notification/order of compulsory retirement be set at nought in line with the grounds agitated in the service appeal.