IHC judgement says disciplinary proceedings more appropriate for any dereliction of duty
• Larger bench quashes contempt case against IHC registrar, deputy registrar over May 9 strike
ISLAMABAD: A larger bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) quashed contempt proceedings against the registrar and deputy registrar of the high court, ruling that judges cannot initiate contempt proceedings against court officials if disciplinary proceedings can be started.
The larger bench, comprising Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, Justice Mohammad Azam Khan and Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas, decided the appeal filed by Registrar Sardar Tahir Sabir and Deputy Registrar Mohammad Awais ul Hassan Khan against their indictment in a contempt case initiated by Justice Babar Sattar.
The bench ruled that “where the disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against the employees, the more appropriate way is to proceed with initiation of such and not the contempt proceedings.”
Justice Sattar initiated the contempt proceedings against the IHC officials over their failure to maintain order during the lawyers strike on May 9 last year. The contempt proceedings were initiated on the complaint of lawyer Naeem Bukhari who accused the Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) president of forcibly restraining the lawyers from entering the premises.
However, in subsequent hearings, the directions of the contempt proceedings were diverted towards the registrar and deputy registrar for allegedly misleading the court. Both the officers challenged the contempt proceedings through intra-court appeals.
During the hearing, the counsel for the appellants contended before the bench that “no contempt is made out in the facts and circumstances inasmuch as there was no obstruction on part of legal community to approach this court”.
It was contended that both appellants were employees of the Islamabad High Court and in case, there was any dereliction of duty, the matter ought to have been reported to the chief justice and placed before the administration committee, but that did not call for initiation of contempt proceedings.
!
It was further contended that “no mis-statement was made and the appellants cannot even think of the same, hence question of perjury or explanation, does not arise”. The counsel stated that “if there is dereliction in duty, the appropriate course is to proceed in disciplinary proceedings rather than initiate contempt”.
The bench observed that “the orders passed in the contempt proceeding are appealable…an appeal shall lie as a right, where an order or decision has been passed while exercising jurisdiction qua punishment for contempt.”
“The Administration Committee (of the IHC) after receiving the inquiry report, did come to the conclusion that there was no hindrance and there is no complaint whatsoever in this regard, hence there was no obstruction in dispensation of justice,” the judgement noted.
“In case, if any honourable judge of this court did feel that either of the appellants was in dereliction of duty, appropriate course was to refer the matter to the Administration Committee of this court or to the chief justice for inquiring into the same.”
As per the judgement, the initiation of contempt proceedings, where there was no administrative or judicial order, cannot form the basis for proceedings against the appellants. “Where the disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against the employees, the more appropriate way is to proceed with initiation of such and not the contempt proceedings,” the order said.
