Brief facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner joined Local Council service as Assistant Engineer (BS-17) on 13.08.1968, later on promoted to BS-18 and 19, however, in the year 2001 he was posted as Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala. The petitioner was arrested on 23.06.2001 by the NAB Authorities where he entered into a "plea bargain" for a sum of Rs,30 million, resultantly, he was released from judicial lockup of NAB on 29.07.2001. When he reported for duty, he was not allowed to resume the duty and finally he was dismissed through order dated 10.03.2004. According to the petitioner's contentions this order of 10.03.2004 was received by him on 19.09.2005 and accordingly be filed a representation on 30.9.2005, which was not decided, so he filed Writ Petition No, 16928/2005, which was dismissed through order dated 04.10.2005 being barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and being an incompetent petition. After dismissal of writ petition by this Court, the petitioner approached the Punjab Service Tribunal in Appeal No, 2924/2005, where the petitioner contended that in case a direction is issued to Respondent No, 2 to decide the departmental appeal at the earliest, he will be satisfied and will not press the appeal for the time being, so on the petitioner's request that appeal was disposed of with the observation that if an adverse order is passed by the appellate authority, he may avail of appropriate remedy before the competent forum. The petitioner's appeal was disposed of on 24.04.2006 but he after disposal of his appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal, kept silent and now has filed the present writ petition with the following prayer:-- "It is therefore respectfully prayed as follows:--
1. Petition may kindly be accepted with costs.
2. Impugned order dated 10.3.2004 may kindly be set aside.
3. Petitioner may kindly be reinstated in .service as Chief Engineer in BS-19 with all consequential and book benefits.
4. In addition Respondent Nos, 1 & 2 may kindly be directed to allow petitioner to actively serves as Chief Engineer in BS 19 after attaining the age of superannuation viz. 11.6.2006 equal to the period for which he was illegally not allowed to serve for no fault of his i,e, from 15.4.2000 till date of his reinstatement (period of over 6 years) on the basis of the law contained in Hon'ble SC above referred unreported judgment dated 11/12.6.2008.
5. Petitioner may kindly be awarded such other relief/reliefs to which he is entitled."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued the case at length and submits with vehenience that--
1. the impugned order was passed without lawful authority and without application of independent mind, 2 the impugned order is based on two charges, one willful absence from duty and the other to enter into "plea bargain", whereas both the charges were not warranted under the law which was in force at that particular time,
3. no regular inquiry into the charge of absence from duty was held despite the fact that the said charge of absence from duty involved serious factual controversy and in that eventuality the regular inquiry could not be dispensed with,
4. the impugned order in respect of allegation of "plea bargain' is repugnant to the Punjab Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and even NAB Ordinance 1999 as it existed on 28.07.2001,
5. the "plea bargain" was forcibly obtained from the petitioner under duress and in custody under the arrest of NAB, so confessions obtained during police custody have no legal sanctity culminating the impugned dismissal order a nullity in the eye of law.
3. In support of his contentions, learned counsel heavily relies on a judgment dated 12.06.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No, 558/2008 titled "Shahid Hayat vs. Federation of Pakistan and others" and submits that on all fours the petitioner's case is at par and he is entitled for the same relief which was granted to Shahid Hayat by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
4. Learned Assistant Advocate General opposes the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the writ petition being barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan cannot be entertained particularly when the petitioner's earlier writ petition was dismissed on this score in the year 2005. Further submits that on the touchstone of principle of res judicata, this petition is not maintainable. Adds that if at all it is presumed that the writ petition is competent/maintainable then the point of latches shall be an important factor for resolving and the present controversy cannot be decided in favour of the petitioner because after availing remedy before the High Court as well as before the Punjab Service Tribunal, the petitioner slept for a number of years and now has come to this Court without any justification whatsoever.
5. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
6. Before going into the actual ratio of this case, it is important to take into account that the petitioner has in fact made a second attempt through this writ petition to achieve what he could not in the first attempt. Admittedly, the petitioner previously filed Writ Petition No, 16928/2005, which was dismissed on the ground that this plea was barred by the operation of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
7. Instead of approaching the Service Tribunal first the petitioner chose a shorter way through improper and illegal way of invoking the jurisdiction of this Court but his writ petition was dismissed on 04.10.2005. Surprisingly, in the present writ petition again the petitioner is trying to knock at the wrong door of justice even though his previous writ petition was dismissed on the same grounds.
8. It is well established principle of law that an act which cannot or should not be done in a particular manner should also not be done in an indirect manner to achieve the same result, hence this ground alone is sufficient for me to dismiss the instant writ petition. Furthermore, this writ petition is also suffering from bar of latches because the petitioner has slept over his cause of action for a period of three years approximately.
9. Going into the detail of this case, it is particularly transparent on the face of the record and is admitted by the petitioner himself that he has paid a sum of Rs,30 million to the Government Exchequer in an attempt to bring about a "plea bargain" in the NAB against allegations of his corruption thereby relieving him of any further charges or trial against him. This action of the petitioner is highly disparaging and oblivious of the fact that in the going circumstances of the country at this juncture a poor man on the street cannot even arrange Rs,50/- for one time basic need for himself not to talk about his whole family and a Grade 19 Government servant is offering Rs,30 million for a contractual compromise with the Government Exchequer which is given the name of "plea bargain" in order to relieve himself of all the corruption he has conducted throughout his career.
10.In my view not only is this particular proposition highly illegitimate but the whole system of allowing "plea bargaining" with the Government Exchequer is also illegal and directly in contravention to the principle of fair-play, justice and equity.
A "plea bargain" is essentially a form of an admission of guilt on the part of the accused and is normally taken where the offender knows that he is and has reasons to believe that he might be convicted of the offence and therefore in order to evade full punishment or a prescribed punishment of offence the offender accepts an offer from the prosecution to plead guilty in change of a lesser sentence or in some circumstances no sentence as the case may be.
11.It has to be reminded that civil services are one of the most respected services in any given country and officers working for the Government have a special trust placed upon their shoulders by the general public and an additional responsibility to ensure that they work honestly with utmost dedication efficiency and accountability. If "plea bargaining" is continued to be allowed in case of civil servants/government servants/officers of the Government controlled organizations, it would open a new Pandora box for all other employees who are in a position to inflict a loss upon the Government Exchequer, to inflict as much loss as they can. For example, if the petitioner in this case is allowed to escape from departmental proceedings against him on the basis of having reached a plea bargain and in exchange is exonerated from the charges, this would make a bad precedent for the future proposition where an employee loots the Government Exchequer at his whims and fancy until he is caught and with the knowledge that he would be held accountable in NAB and would forego a share in his looted money to get back to his job.
12.This action of the petitioner is share violation and misuse of public powers and the trust placed upon him by the public which cannot be allowed in any circumstances.
13. So far the contention of the petitioner's learned counsel in respect of non-applicability of the provisions of NAB Ordinance at the time of petitioner's "plea bargain" is concerned, suffice it to say that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 10.03.2004 and Section 15 in the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 was amended much prior to that. It shall be advantageous to reproduce Section 15 of the Ordinance ibid, which is as follows:-- Disqualification to contest elections [or to hold to public office]:-- (a)[Where an accused person is convicted [of an offence under Section 9 of this Ordinance] he shall forthwith cease to hold public office, if any, held by him and further he shall stand disqualified for a period of ten years, to be reckoned from the date he is released after serving the sentence, for seeking or from being elected, chosen, appointed or nominated as a member of representative of any public body or any statutory or local authority or in service of Pakistan of any Province: Provided that any accused person who has availed the benefit of [sub-section (b) of section] 25 shall also be deemed to have been convicted for an offence under this Ordinance, and shall forthwith cease to hold public office, if any, held by him and further he shall stand disqualified for a period of ten years, to be reckoned from the date he has discharged his liabilities relating to the matter or transaction in issue, for seeking or from being elected, chosen appointed or nominated as a member or representative of any public body or any statutory or local authority or in service of Pakistan or of any Province.] (b)Any person convicted of an offence [under Section 9 of the Ordinance] shall not be allowed to apply for or be granted or allowed any financial facilities in the form of any loan or advances [or other financial accommodation by] any Bank or Financial Institution [owned or controlled by Government], for a period of 10 years from the date of conviction."
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was condemned unheard because he was not served with a show-cause notice before the dismissal. Suffice it to say that the petitioner himself appended copy of the show-cause notice published in Nawa-e-Waqt Lahore dated 16.02.2001, which is available at page 22 of the writ petition, hence the contention of the petitioner's learned counsel is repelled.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 10.03.2004, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service offends the provisions of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act being a non-speaking order. This contention of the learned counsel is not convincing one because the bare reading of the impugned order reveals that all aspects were attended to by the punishing authority and this was passed applying its independent mind going through the entire record of the case, hence the petitioner's contention in this respect is repelled.
16. As discussed above, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 12.06.2008 and contends with vehemence that the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief which was extended to the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. I am afraid that the judgment referred by the learned counsel will not be helpful to the petitioner on a short ground that appellant before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in that case did not enter into plea bargain with the NAB, whereas in the present case the petitioner admittedly deposited a sum of Rs,30 million with the NAB Authorities, thus keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and in view of my findings discussed above, this writ petition is dismissed.