Judge gets justice 21 years after retirement

LAHORE:

A civil judge was finally dispensed justice 21 years after his retirement when the Lahore High Court (LHC) ordered relevant authorities to issue his retirement notification and release his retirement benefits.

A three-member division bench of the LHC, headed by Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, observed that Dr Syed Ali Sana Bokhari (appellant) had served the judiciary for about 23 years.

Therefore, in all fairness, once the pending disciplinary proceedings were abated and the dismissal order was no longer in the field, there was no justification for halting the issuance of the appellant's retirement notification or withholding his pensionary benefits.

The bench noted that it is settled law that an employee cannot be penalised for any action which was the subject matter of an inquiry that was not completed before his superannuation.

Upon reaching the age of superannuation, any unfinished disciplinary proceedings automatically cease to have effect by operation of law. The legal extinction of proceedings vests in the civil servant an indefeasible right to receive their full complement of pensionary benefits without deduction or diminution.

The superior courts of the country have consistently upheld this principle as a fundamental safeguard against the perpetual pendency of disciplinary action, recognising that retirement creates a vested right that cannot be retroactively disturbed by inconclusive inquiries.

It is worth mentioning that the appellant was appointed as a civil judge in 1978. In 1991, while posted at the LHC as in charge of the newly created computer cell, he was issued a charge sheet on November 25, 1991, containing allegations of misconduct, inefficiency and non-performance of duties.

Although the disciplinary proceedings were ultimately dropped, they were followed by suo motu contempt proceedings, which culminated in the appellant's conviction by a single judge via judgment on November 28, 1993 (announced in open court on December 8, 1993).

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before a division bench, which was dismissed on June 3, 2000 (announced on June 28, 2000). That decision was further challenged before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which also dismissed the appeal on October 5, 2000 (announced on December 6, 2000).

Nevertheless, the sentence awarded to the appellant was reduced to one month, with the same amount of fine and one month of simple imprisonment in case of default of payment. Consequently, he was dismissed from service via notification dated September 28, 2001.

The appellant filed a departmental appeal followed by a service appeal before the tribunal. However, during the pendency of that appeal, the appellant reached the age of superannuation on April 1, 2004.

Through judgment dated June 20, 2014, the service appeal was decided by setting aside the dismissal order and remanding the matter for a fresh decision after affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing.

Both parties challenged the said judgment by filing civil petition 333-L of 2015 and civil petition 532-L of 2015 before the Supreme Court, which were disposed of via judgment dated May 18, 2020, upholding the earlier judgment of June 20, 2014.