' KAZIM ALI MALIK, J.---Liaqat Ali, petitioner herein got registered case F.I.R. No,9, dated 11-4-2007 under sections 420/467/ 468/471, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sahiwal against Revenue officials and private persons. The final result of investigation was in favour of the petitioner herein/complainant, which was laid before the Director General of Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab, Lahore who examined the record and approved judicial action against the accused persons with a direction to the investigator to submit challan against the accused in Court.
2. Amir Masood, Tehsildar, Sahiwal was one of the accused persons against whom judicial action had been approved by the authority. He made an application before the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore seeking suspension of the above said order of Director General, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab, Lahore and cancellation of the case. The Additional Chief Secretary entertained the request of Amir Masood, accused and sought a report from the Director General, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab in the following words:-- "Could you please send a report on this within 10 days."
' The Director General, Anti-Corruption Establishment took up the matter again in response to the above said order/direction of the Addl. Chief Secretary and ordered reinvestigation of the case.
Feeling dissatisfied, the complainant has called in question legality of the above said orders through this constitutional petition.
3. The Director General, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab, Lahore has submitted his report to the effect that on perusal of the record, difference of opinion among the Investigating Officers with regard to the guilt of Amir Masood, accused was noticed and it was, therefore, deemed appropriate to get the case re-investigated in the interests of justice.
4. I have minutely gone through the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 in order to resolve the controversy. Rule 19 ibid deals with the point in issue and is, therefore, re-produced in verbatim for ready reference:--- "Suo motu Examination.--(1) 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 directions as may be necessary for the speedy, fair and just disposal of the same.
(2) The director may suo motu or otherwise call for the record of any case or enquiry 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 these rules, and may pass such order as may be deemed fit in each case.
(3) The Chief Secretary may suo motu call for the record of any case or enquiry, for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the correctness or propriety of decision taken by the Director under the forgoing sub-rules and under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 and may pass such order as deems fit in each case.
(4) The Governor may suo motu or otherwise call for the record of any case or enquiry pending or finalized, for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the correctness or propriety of decision taken by any authority under these rules and may pass such orders as deems fit in each case."
' It is manifest from a bare perusal of the above said Rule that the Governor, the Chief Secretary and the Director may suo motu or otherwise call for the record of any case pending investigation with the establishment and give such direction as may be necessary for the speedy, fair and just disposal of the same. In this case, the Governor has not passed any order or direction. The Chief Secretary also neither summoned nor examined the record. The Additional Chief Secretary also did not call for the record and simply sought a report from the Investigating Agency. Now adverting to the order of the Director General, Anti-Corruption Establishment under challenge, I could not understand as to why he opened the chapter of investigation, which had already been closed by him with a direction to the investigation to submit challan in Court. The state of record was the same when the Director-General approved judicial action against the accused persons. In the circumstances, there was no factual and legal justification for the Director General, Anti-Corruption Establishment to sit in appeal against his own order and action. In fact two conflicting orders by the Director-General, Anti-Corruption Establishment are in field. At one time he endorsed and approved the investigation against the accused persons including Amir' Masood, obviously after having examined the record. But on reconsideration he chose to review and change his earlier order.
5. I have gone through the Cr.P.C., and Anti-Corruption Laws including the Rules, referred above and could not find any rule or provision of law which may empower or authorize the Director General, Anti-Corruption Establishment to sit in appeal against his own order.
6. For what has been stated above the order of re-investigation by the Director-General, Anti- Corruption Establishment, Punjab, Lahore being not in line with the earlier one where-under judicial action had been approved, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. I, therefore, allow this petition and declare the impugned order as illegal, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.