Muhammad Safdar son of Faqir Sain, the petitioner, who is a Revenue Patwari, has filed this Constitutional petition whereby he has challenged the order dated 26.4.2005 passed by the learned Provincial Ombudsman Punjab, Lahore (Respondent No. 4) as well as the subsequent action initiated against him by Director Anti-Corruption Establishment, Farid Kot House, Lahore and Deputy Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sialkot Circle Sialkot Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
2. The allegations in detail find mention in the impugned order of the Ombudsman dated 26.4.2005.
The Ombudsman Punjab on the basis of inquiry got conducted by him issued certain directions to the Director, ACE Punjab Lahore which are contained in Paragraphs Nos. 10 & 11 of the impugned order. The said paragraphs are reproduced as under:--
10. Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment Punjab, Lahore is therefore, directed to:-- "(i) get the matter reinvestigated through a senior and competent officer in view of the observations made above. and final outcome of the action taken in the light of reinvestigation of the case in accordance with the law, be reported by 15.6.2005.
(ii) take suitable action against Shakeel Nasir Assistant Director for not conducting the inquiry properly, prima-facie, with mala fide intention. The outcome of the action taken against him be intimated by 15.6.2005.
11. The report dated 19.4:2003 submitted by Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Sialkot is also sketchy.
He has submitted the report without probe and properly consulting the revenue record and has thus not rendered proper assistance to this Office in the matter. He needs to be proceeded against under the law. In view of this position Executive District Officer (Revenue) Sialkot is directed to:--
(a) initiate disciplinary action against Deputy District Officer , (Revenue) Sialkot and submit the case to the competent authority for taking appropriate action against him in accordance with the law.
(b) proceed against Patwari halqa Mauza Hundal who issued incorrect Fard Malkiat against the revenue record on 26.3.1994 under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2002."
It was on the basis of the aforesaid directions that Deputy Director Anti-Corruption Establishment Sialkot Circle had initiated action and re-investigation of FIR No. 147/95 dated 18.12.1995, Police Station Directorate ACE. Punjab had begun. The orders of the Ombudsman dated 26.4.2005 and the subsequent action initiated by the Anti-Corruption authorities have been impugned through this constitutional petition.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the matter regarding sale of land in dispute was subjudice before a Civil Court, therefore, the Ombudsman did; not have jurisdiction to issue the directions as he did that the Ombudsman vide his order dated 18.3.2002, on a previous complaint (No. C-6889 ADV-I-546/2001) filed by Muhammad Alam (Respondent No. 3), had already observed that if the latter had any grievance he may approach the Director-General ACE, therefore, no fresh direction could be issued; that at any rate even if the impugned order dated 26.4.2005 passed by the Ombudsman remains in the field it does not contain any direction to the Anti-Corruption Establishment to conduct any investigation against the petitioner; that the Ombudsman had only directed the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Sialkot to proceed against the Patwari Halqa of Mauza Hundal, who had allegedly issued incorrect Fard Malkiat against the revenue record in the year 1994, therefore, inclusion of the petitioner in investigation by Anti- Corruption department is without lawful authority and is of no legal effect; that the petitioner is a resident of Mauza Hundal and during his entire career he had never been posted as Patwari Halqa in the said village; that at the relevant time the petitioner had been posted at Halqa Simbly Bajwat, district Sialkot which is located at a distance of 50 miles from Mauza Hundal and even otherwise he signed as Muhammad Safdar and not Safdar Ali that in the previous investigations carried out in FIR No. 147/95 the petitioner had been declared to be innocent, therefore, the said FIR to the extent of the petitioner needs to be quashed; that the impugned order dated 26.4.2005 passed by the Provincial Ombudsman suffers from the principle of "audi alteram partem" as the petitioner had not been provided with any opportunity to present his point of view.
4. On the other hand the learned Addl. Advocate General argued that the petitioner had an equally efficacious remedy available to him by way of filing a representation before the Governor which has not been resorted to that in W.P. No. 14817-05 which had been filed by the petitioner himself this Court vide its order dated 28.11.2005 had endorsed the order of the Ombudsman dated 26.4.2005 whereby reinvestigation of the case had been ordered; that the said order dated 26.4.2005 of the Ombudsman had thus attained finality and the matter cannot be reopened again; that the petitioner has not been able to point out any prejudice having been caused to him by the order of the Ombudsman and in this scenario the principle of "audi alteram partem" is not applicable; that at any score the direction of holding reinvestigation by the Ombudsman cannot be termed as an order adverse to the petitioner; that during the reinvestigation the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to put forward his point of view and to present his defence; that pendency of civil litigation is no bar to criminal proceedings and both the proceedings can be carried out simultaneously; that scope of investigation cannot be restricted or confined to a particular individual as the investigation is always carried out in offence(s) and not against a particular offender.
5. I have heard Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sandhu, Advocate for the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ch. Aamir Rehman Addl. Advocate-General assisted by Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Shami, Advocate for the State and record brought by Tariq Mehmood Deputy Director (Investigations and Hassan, Raza, Assistant Director, ACE Gujranwala, has also been perused.
6. In order to appreciate the arguments and the pleas raised on behalf of the petitioner, a factual inquiry needs to be undertaken, which cannot be done by this Court while seized of a constitutional petition. I subscribe to the view expressed by the learned Additional Advocate-General that the petitioner has failed to show any prejudice having been caused to him on account of reinvestigation in case FIR No. 147/1995. It is now well settled that multiple investigations can be carried out in a criminal case even after submission of the report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. and a fresh challan could also be submitted. Reference can profitably be made to "Muhammad Yousaf vs. The State and others"' (2000 SCMR 453), "Syed Waqar Hussain Shah vs. The State, (PLD 1988 Lahore 666), and "Safia Begum vs. S.H.O. Police Station Garh Maharaja, District Jhang and 3 others"
(1993 P.Cr.L.J. 97). Even otherwise it has been noticed that in W.P. No. 14817/2005 filed by none other than the petitioner himself, the order of the learned Ombudsman, which has now been impugned in this constitutional petition had come under discussion and this Court had directed the Anti- Corruption Establishment to reinvestigate the matter fairly and objectively. It is too late for the petitioner in the day to file the instant petition after more than six months of the disposal of the said. Writ Petition No. 14817/2005.
7. There is no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that criminal action cannot continue in the presence of a civil suit. Criminal proceedings are not barred in the presence of civil proceedings and civil and criminal proceedings could be continued or proceeded with simultaneously. Reference may be made to Ahmed Saeed versus The State and another (1996 SCMR 186), Talib Hussain versus Anar Gul Khan. and 4 others (1993 SCMR 2177) and the. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore and others versus Anis-ur-Rehrnan Khan, (PLD 1985 SC 134).
8. The petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in the order passed by the learned Ombudsman. In the case of "Union of India and another Appellants vs. M/S Jesus Sales Corporation, Respondent". (AIR 1996 SC 1509)" it was held that requirement of an opportunity to be heard before adverse order is passed does not in all situations means giving of personal hearing.
9. I find no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.