' This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-- "In view of the above, it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may graciously be accepted and F.I.R. No.14 dated 25-9-2001 under sections 420/468/471/161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2)47 of PCA at Police Station A.C.E. Rawalpindi along with inquiry report ACE/RR/14/2001/RWP/4431 dated 23-6-2004 submitted by the respondent No.3 on behalf of respondent No.2 recommending judicial action against the petitioner may graciously be quashed in accordance with law to the extent of the petitioner to meet the interest of justice and in the peculiar circumstances of the case and the same be declared as illegal, void ab initio and ineffective and the respondents may be restrained from creating harassm ent to the petitioner on the basis of said false and frivolous F. I. R .
' It is further prayed that meanwhile, the proceedings in the said F.I.R. And inquiry report dated 23- 6-2004 may be stayed till the decision of this writ petition."
2. Through written arguments petitioner's counsel contends that the petitioner was exonerated in three inquiries conducted by the Anti-Corruption Establishment; that the petitioner has been discriminated because respondent No.2 has recommended judicial action against the petitioner but the Revenue Officer who sanctioned the mutation namely Muhammad Ramzan, Naib Tehsildar was only recommended for departmental action. Moreover, Girdawar Ghulam Mujtaba was also dropped. Further contends that the petitioner is not the beneficiary of the act nor is privy to any offence.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents by referring rules 6 and 7 of the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 framed under section 6 of the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment, Ordinance 1961 (West Pakistan Ordinance XX of 1961) contends that the preliminary inquiries and the investigations against the public servants can be made by the Establishment on the complaint received from the Government, or the Heads of the Departments or other reliable sources. Further refers to rule 15 to contend that the procedure given in this rule can be followed by dropping of a case or recommending departmental action. According to him, the Director may suo motu or otherwise call for the record of any case/enquiry, pending investigation with the establishment examine it and give such direction as may be necessary for the speedy, fair and just disposal of the same.
4. The nutshell of the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the exoneration of the petitioner in the three inquiries by the A.C.E. Would not give a vested right to the petitioner that the case registered against him be quashed.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
6. Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 were famed under section 6 of the Punjab Anti- Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961 (West Pakistan Ordinance XX of 1961). Under rule 5(1)(a) of the said rules, after the preliminary inquiry, if the ex officio Additional Director or ex officio Deputy Director finds that there is no ground to proceed further in the matter, the proceedings shall be dropped after recording reasons, and the complainant, if any, shall be informed. Rule 15(1)(b) says that if there are reasonable grounds to proceed further in the matter, he shall refer the case along with the relevant record to the appointing authority of the accused-public servant for departmental proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Under rule 6 of the said Rules preliminary enquiries and investigations shall be initiated by the Establishment against public servants on complaints received from the Government, Head of Departments or other reliable sources. Rule 15 deals with the dropping of the cases or recommending departmental action.
Under rule 19 suo motu Examination of the record of any case or inquiry, pending investigation, be lie with the Director for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness or propriety of decision taken by the Additional Director under clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of rule 15 and of the ex officio Additional Director and ex officio Deputy Director under the rules, and may pass such order as may be deemed fit in each case.
7. The accumulative effect of the reading of the above-stated rules would make it clear that exoneration of the petitioner in three inquiries of A.C.E., would not give a right to the petitioner- accused that the impugned F.I.R. (No.14 dated 25-9-2001) should be quashed. Rule 15 of the Punjab A.C.E. Rules, 1985 empowers the Establishment that on completion of investigation if the allegations are not established, the case shall be dropped an intimation to the effect may be sent to the authorities mentioned in rule 8. Rule 15(1)(b) also empowers the Establishment that if after investigation it is found that the prosecution is not called for but sufficient material is available on the record for departmental action, the Establishment shall move the departmental authorities for departmental proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules.
8. This being so after the exoneration in the inquiries if respondent No.3 on behalf of respondent No.2 recommends judicial action against the petitioner and that Muhammad Ramzan Naib Tehsildar was only recommended for departmental action comes within the scope of rule 15(1)(b) and similarly, dropping of the case against Girdawar Ghulam Mujtaba also covers rule 15(1)(b) for which the petitioners should have no grievance.
9. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because none of the judgments cited by the learned counsel relates to the interpretation of the Anti-Corruption Rules 1985 regarding the case registered by the Anti-Corruption Establishment. In the case reported as Maula Bux and 8 others v.
The State (1977 SCM R 292) the only evidence connecting the appellants and others was consisting of disclosure made by two accused respondents caught by Coast Guards at spot, and it was held that disclosure not admissible in evidence and, therefore, the cases registered under the provisions of Custom Act (IV of 1969) were quashed. In the case reported as Muhammad Mansoor and 2 others v. The State and another (1974 Cr.LJ 59) from Karachi jurisdiction it was ruled that since there was no chance of prosecution being able to bring any evidence of worth-consideration and Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against one accused on such ground and the case of the accused in the referred to above case was identical to the case of the accused who was acquitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the proceedings were quashed. In the case of Abdul Ghafoor v. The State (1984 PCr.LJ 381) the point for consideration was whether offence in relation to a document which is produced before a Court in course of judicial proceedings and its cognizance by Magistrate without a complaint in writing made by the Court was legal or not.
Further it was held that without invoking remedy under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. The quashment petition in the High Court was competent. In the case of Faizan Bibi and another v. The State and 3 others (PLD (sic) Lah .174) it was ruled that registration of case F.I.R. Was abuse of process of law and was result of mala fide and a leverage to be used by rivals of accused mentioned in F.I.R.,. In Lambardari case contested inter se. It was held that proceedings after registration of case shall have no legal effect, therefore, the case was quashed. In the case of Sajjad Hussain v. S.H.O. Police Station Khairpur Sadaat and others (1999 PCr.LJ 322), occurrence taking place within the territorial limits of Police Station A cannot be reported at Police Station B. Likewise, in a theft case, it is the locus standi of owners of property to report the matter to Police, which was not done in that referred case, therefore, the High Court proceeded to quash the proceedings by accepting the writ petition.
' The Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 came up for interpretation before this Court in the case of Mirza Muhammad Iqbal v. Government of the Punjab (PLD 1991 Lah. 109) and Muhammad Khalid v. Additional Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Faisalabad Region, Faisalabad (2002 YLR 1104) and the High Court declined to quash the case F.I.R. Registered by the Anti-Corruption Establishment by observing that no rule can be pointed out to show that the Additional Director A.C.E., was debarred from holding the third inquiry as a result of which the case had been registered against the accused. Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, having been framed by the Executive Authorities and not by the Parliament, were not mandatory and were directory in nature. Even if any action had been taken in violation of any Rule, it was not sufficient ground to quash an F.I.R. ##TE#It was further held that collection of evidence was the duty of the Investigating Officer while exercising its powers under Article 199 of the Constitution and could not stay the investigation of the case. Consequently the Constitution petition was dismissed.
For what has been discussed above, this petition fails and is ID dismissed.