' ASAD MUNIR, J.--- Pursuant to complaints arising out of loss of and damage to trees in the Jand Range of the Attock. Forest Division, a three-member inquiry team after conducting a preliminary probe submitted a report (Annexure C to the writ petition) which found that Nazir Abbas, Range Forest Officer, Adalat Khan, Block Officer and Ghulam Khan, Forest Guard (hereinafter referred to as "the Jand Group"), were responsible for causing loss to the Government in the said area to the tune of Rs,51,98,891.00. Taking cognizance of the aforesaid preliminary report, the Secretary, Forests, Wildlife and Fisheries Department, Government of Punjab, being the competent authority, vide order dated 2-6-2008, appointed Dr. Muhammad Rafiq, Conservator of Forests, to hold a regular inquiry against the aforesaid persons into the allegations of loss caused by them.
2. Simultaneously, the same Inquiry team undertook a preliminary probe into similar complaints of loss of and damage to trees in the Attock Range of the Attock Forest Division and submitted its report (Annexure E to the writ petition) which found that petitioner No,1, petitioner No,2 and petitioner No,3, posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, Block Officer and Forest Guard, respectively, were responsible for loss to the Government of 310 tress valuing Rs,4,09,160.00. Thereafter, a regular inquiry was ordered to be conducted against the petitioners but instead of holding a separate inquiry both the inquiries were joined through order dated 4-11-2008 and Dr. Muhammad Rafiq, Conservator of Forests, was retained as Inquiry Officer in respect of both the inquiries one relating to the Jand Group involving persons other than the petitioners and the other relating to the Attock Range involving the petitioners.
3. In his Inquiry Report dated 20-2-2009, the Inquiry Officer found that the petitioners were not responsible for the alleged loss and recommended their exoneration. On the contrary, the Inquiry Officer found one of the four (4) accused officials of the Jand Group responsible for the damage and loss but exonerated the other three accused officials.
4. Partly disagreeing with the foregoing report, the Secretary, Forests, Wildlife and Fisheries Department, Government of Punjab, vide order dated 22-5-2009 directed de novo inquiry and appointed Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Qureshi, Conservator of Forests, as the Inquiry Officer who submitted his Inquiry Report, dated 4-5-2010, which once again exonerated the petitioners but found the four officials of the Jand Group responsible for the loss and recommended various penalties against them. Thereafter, agreeing with the said Inquiry Report, the Competent Authority vide order dated 10-6-2010 exonerated the petitioners while major penalties including dismissal and withholding of increments were imposed on the Jand Group officials.
5. Being aggrieved by the imposition of the major penalties, the four officials of the Jand Group filed departmental appeals under section 16 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, before the Chief Secretary, Punjab, respondent No,2, who by order dated 21-9-2010 allowed the aforesaid appeals and set aside the penalties imposed on the Jand Group and also ordered the holding of "a de novo inquiry against all the accused involved in this case".
6. Immediately following the Chief Secretary Punjab's Order dated 21-9-2010, the competent authority vide letter dated 21-9-2010 ordered a de novo inquiry and appointed Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Rana, Conservator, as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the allegations not only against the four accused officials of the Jand Group but also against the petitioners.
7. Through this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the competent authority's order dated 21-9-2010 to the extent that no fresh inquiry can be held against the petitioners as the competent authority had exonerated them after agreeing with the findings in the Inquiry Reports dated 4-5- 2010 and 20-2-2009 and that their exoneration, having attained finality, no fresh or de novo inquiry can be ordered against the petitioner in the light of the rule of double jeopardy or that nobody can be vexed twice for the same cause.
8. In their parawise comments, the respondents, while conceding that the petitioners were exonerated by the competent authority vide order dated 10-6-2010, have submitted that the appellate authority was justified in view of section 13(6) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, to order the holding of a de novo inquiry against the petitioners to unearth the truth.
9. Keeping in view the undisputed facts of the case, the sole issue that needs to be addressed is as to whether a de novo inquiry can be ordered against the petitioners even after they have been exonerated by the competent authority in the light of the two inquiry reports submitted by the Inquiry Officers each of whom recommended the exoneration of the petitioners.
10. Admittedly, the inquiry launched against the petitioners related to allegations of loss of or damage to trees in the Attock Sub-division whereas the inquiry against the four officials of Jand group related to similar allegations but with regard to the trees located in the Jand Range. There is, thus, no nexus between the two sets -of allegations which are undoubtedly independent of each other. It appears that the two sets of allegations have been erroneously treated as inseparable only because they were inquired into by the same Inquiry Officers. It is only the Jand Group who filed a departmental appeal which was allowed to the extent that the penalties imposed were set- aside and the case was remanded for a de novo inquiry. Having been exonerated, the petitioners filed no appeal before the appellate authority yet as a result of the appeal filed by others the exoneration of the petitioners is being sought to be reversed by an order for de novo inquiry they never asked for. The two sets of allegations have to be treated as two separate cases and the order of the appellate authority for a de novo inquiry against all the accused must be construed in the proper context and perspective.
11. Neither of the two inquiries could prove the allegations of misconduct against the petitioners whereafter the competent authority exonerated them by means of its order dated 10-6-2010, which was passed under section 13(5) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. A conjoint reading of sections 13(5) and 13(6) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, shows that that upon receipt of the inquiry report, -three options or courses are open to the competent authority. It I can either exonerate the accused or punish them or order a de novo inquiry if it is satisfied that the inquiry proceedings have not been conducted lawfully or on merits. A competent authority cannot exercise more than one option and cannot order de novo inquiry once it has exercised the option of exonerating the accused official.
Since the petitioners were duly exonerated by the competent authority under section 13(5) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, no fresh inquiry or de novo inquiry was called for or could be held under S.13(6) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. '
12. Admittedly, the competent authority was satisfied with the inquiry report in respect of the petitioners with the result that it agreed with the recommendation of the Inquiry Officers for exoneration of the petitioners. Once the petitioners had been exonerated, the appellate authority or the competent authority could not reopen the matter or order a de novo inquiry against the petitioners as it is settled law that one cannot be vexed twice for the same cause. The facts in the present case are to a great extent similar to those in Muhammad Khaliq v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore (2000 PLC (C.S.) 1373) where a junior clerk and a senior clerk were jointly proceeded against for misconduct and after inquiry the minor penalty of withholding of one year's increment was imposed on the junior clerk while the senior clerk was removed from service. An appeal was filed by the senior clerk before the departmental authority who ordered a fresh inquiry against both the civil servants. Relying on Director-General (Field), Agricultural Department, Lahore v. Haji Abdul Rehman (1989 SCMR 1224), the principle "no body can be vexed twice for the same cause" was applied and it was held that action against the junior clerk had attained finality and the matter could not be reopened for the apparent purpose of imposing a higher penalty on him.
13. Learned A.A.-G. Has also referred to Article 212(2) of the Constitution to contend that this Court cannot exercise its constitutional jurisdiction as the grievance of the petitioners relates to their terms and conditions of service in respect of which the exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Punjab Services Tribunal. According to Article 212(2) of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the other Court including the High Court is barred only "in respect of a matter to which the jurisdiction of such administrative Court or Tribunal extends". In the present case, the order for the de novo inquiry, being not a final order, is not appealable before the Punjab Service Tribunal in view of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, which limits the jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal to appeals against final orders passed by the departmental authority. In support, I may refer to case titled Sayyed Saeed Hussain Shah v. Province of Punjab (1981 PLC 297) wherein it was held that the bar of Article 212(2) of the Constitution was not applicable as the order for re-opening of inquiry against a civil servant, exonerated of the same charge earlier, was not a final order and that such an order was void for being violative of the principles natural justice. Guidance can also be sought from Muhammad Yar Buttar v. Board of Governors, Overseas Pakistanis Foundation, Islamabad and another (1999 SCMR 819) wherein the honourable Supreme Court, while determining the scope of the Federal Service Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 4 of Federal Tribunal Act, 1974, laid down the rule that orders relating to the holding of the inquiry cannot be challenged in appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. It is significant to note that section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, provides for an appeal against a final order only whereas section 4 of the Federal Tribunal Act, 1974, as amended, allows an appeal even if the order is not final. This means that the jurisdiction of the Punjab Tribunal to hear appeals is even more limited compared to that of the Federal Service Tribunal. The bar contained in Article. 212(2) of the Constitution does not appear to apply as the grievance of the petitioners cannot be made the subject matter of the appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal who has no jurisdiction to remedy the wrong in the present case. Since the order for holding the de novo inquiry against the petitioners appears to be patently unwarranted and unlawful, I am of the view that the bar of Article 212(2) of the Constitution does not come in the way of this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed and order dated 21-9-2010, whereby a de novo inquiry has been ordered, is declared to be illegal and without lawful authority to the extent of the petitioners. The parties are left to bear their own costs.