' Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the varies of order dated 24.01.2013, whereby the respondent has ordered for holding of comprehensive de novo inquiry into the case.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on the complaint of Govt. Of the Punjab Irrigation & Power Department, Lahore 24 Officers/officials of the respondent who were posted at Muzaffargarh Canal Division, Muzaffargarh, including the petitioners, were ordered to be proceeded by the Anti- Corruption Establishment Punjab. Resultantly, a Committee was constituted to probe into the matter. According to the report of Committee, the petitioners along with others were allegedly held involved in misappropriation of public funds and Muhammad Latif Deputy Director PMO (P & R), Zone Lahore was directed to conduct an inquiry regarding the work charged establishment payments in Muzafargarh Division. The Inquiry Officer in his report found involved the petitioners and 20 other Officers/officials. The matter was referred to Anti-Corruption Establishment.
Consequently, a case FIR No. 10/2010 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 409 & 109, PPC read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act No. H, 1947 was registered regarding embezzlement of Government funds in the work procurement of flood fighting material in Muzaffargarh Canal Division. After thorough probe, the Anti-Corruption Establishment prepared report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Read with Section 169 of Cr.P.C. And recommended cancellation of the FIR. The learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore while in agreement with the report, discharged the petitioners and others vide order dated 30.6.2011. Simultaneously, a departmental action was also proposed and inquiry was also initiated vide order dated 30.09.2010 under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline & Accountability Act, 2006 and one Mr. Khalid Hanif Bhatti was appointed as Inquiry Officer to proceed against the petitioners and others under Section 5 read with Section 9 of the PEEDA, Act, 2006. The said Inquiry Officer on 09.10.2012, submitted report to the respondent wherein petitioners along with others were exonerated from the charges. Vide order dated 24.01.2013, the respondent by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 13 of PEEDA Act, 2006, ordered for de novo inquiry.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondent was not competent to order for de novo inquiry in the light of the facts that the Anti-Corruption Establishment after registration of the FIR against the petitioners and others had exonerated them from the charges of corrupt practice and discharge report in terms of Sections 173 and 169, Cr.P.C. Was prepared on the basis of which, the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, discharged the petitioners from the charges, the respondent has the power under Section 13(6) of the PEEDA Act, 2006 to order for a denovo inquiry, but maintained that same could only be done after the competent authority is satisfied; that the inquiry proceedings have not been conducted in accordance with the law or the facts and merits of the case have been ignored and there are sufficient grounds available after recording reasons in writing, remand the inquiry to the Inquiry Officer or to the Inquiry Committee or may order for a de novo inquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that vide- the impugned order, no solid reasons and grounds were assigned to hold denovo inquiry and finally that the order has been passed in a mechanical manner, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
4. Notices were issued to the respondent. He filed report and Parawise comments. The action of the respondent was supported by maintaining that the competent authority after having gone through the inquiry report observed that the inquiry has been conducted in a slipshod manner and merits of the case have not been fully accounted for by the Inquiry Officer according to the PEEDA Act, 2006, therefore, the Secretary Irrigation/Competent Authority ordered for holding of a comprehensive inquiry into the matter while exercising powers under Section 13(6) of PEEDA Act, 2006. It was further mentioned that the Officers are prima facie found involved in the embezzlement of public funds in the procurement of Flood Fighting Material amounting to Rs.26.44 Millions and payment of Rs.94.633 Millions without tenders during financial year, 2009-2010.
5. The learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondent has maintained that rather the petitioners and other officers have been exonerated by the Anti-Corruption Establishment from criminal charges, but the department independently carried out probe into the allegation of corruption and misappropriation of funds under the PEEDA Act, 2006. He further maintained that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings can be initiated simultaneously. He also submitted that despite proceedings against the delinquents under the criminal law, independent disciplinary proceedings can also be initiated against the Public Servants, found involved in the corruption and embezzlement of the public money. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Government of N.-W.F.P and others vs. Asif lqbal (2010 SCMR 1345), Syed Muhammad Iqbal Jafri vs. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore (2004 SCMR 540) & Muhammad Iqbal vs. District Police Officer, Sahiwal and another (2011 SCMR 534).
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. From bare reading of the impugned order, it reflects that the respondent had only ordered for denovo inquiry which was an interim order. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners are not convincing. The competent authority according to Section 13(6) of the PEEDA Act, 2006, is competent to order for denovo inquiry after recording reasons in writing in case he finds that the inquiry proceedings have not been conducted according to the facts and merits of the case. In the impugned order, the competent authority, has very candidly held that the inquiry has been conducted in a slipshod manner and merits of the case have not been fully accounted for by the Inquiry Officer according to PEEDA Act, 2006. Hence, vide order dated 24.01.2013, appointed one Mr. Inayat Ullah Cheema, Superintending Engineer, LCC (W) Circle, Faisalabad as Inquiry Officer wide order dated 24.01.2013 to conduct denovo inquiry against the petitioners and others. In the same manner in accordance with Section 9(1)(c) read with Section 12 of the Act, ibid, the Executive Engineer, Muzaffargarh Canal Sub Division, was appointed as Departmental Representative and the petitioners and other officers/officials were directed to submit their written defence to the Inquiry Officer within seven days. The Inquiry Officer was required to submit recommendations within a period of 60 days from initiation of inquiry.
8. It is an established principle of law that the 'Courts cannot interfere in the disciplinary matters that too pro ided in a special law like PEEDA Act, 2006. While promulgating the Act, ibid, this was in the mind of the legislature that the competent authority be given A powers to place a check over the findings of Inquiry Officers. In Section 13 of the Act, ibid, the competent authority has been authorized to pass an order on receipt of report from the Inquiry Officers or Inquiry Committee, if same is not in accordance with law.
9. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, cannot indulge itself in the matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of the civil servants and that too when the denovo inquiry has been ordered by the competent authority by exercising a power which vests in the competent authority under Section 13(6) of the PEEDA Act, 2006. The petition in hand is pre-mature. The petitioners and the other Officers and Officials have ample opportunity to defend themselves by way of submitting their written defence to the Inquiry Officer within seven days and the law has provided them all opportunities to defend themselves by way of even cross-examining the witnesses and to rely upon any record.
10. The public functionaries under the Constitution and law are duty bound to do anything they are permitted by law to do or anything they are required by law to do. If the petitioners and other persons are aggrieved from any of the final order passed by the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority, the law provides them remedy of filing departmental appeal and review and even if not satisfied, to invoke the jurisdiction of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal under the PEEDA Act, 2006.
11. The High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot restrain any public functionaries from proceedings under the law. This principle has been enunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of PAKCOM Limited and others vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 44). The relevant portion of the judgment is incorporated here under:-- "The special forums created under statute such like Administrative Tribunals and Authorities are "judges of the sufficiency of evidence and necessity, expediency and reasonableness of the action to be taken. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot sit as a Court of Appeal and pronounce upon the sufficiency, quality or quantum of evidence on which the finding of an Administrative Authority its based. The High Court in writ jurisdiction can only examine the legality of the impugned order. Where discretion is vested under the law in a statutory body the mode of exercising the discretion cannot be interfered with by the Court." Muzaffar Ali Shah v.
Registrar Cooperative Societies (PLD. 1968 Kar. 422), Abdul Hafeez v. Chairman, Municipal Corpn.
(PLD 1967 Lah. 1251), Hassan Muhammad v. Settlement Commissioner (1982 SCMR 969), Budhu Ram v. Peare Lal (AIR 1952 All. 916)."
12. I see no infirmity in the impugned order passed. The respondent is seized of the inquiry under Section 13(6) of the PEEDA Act, 2006, which cannot call for interference by this Court in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition being pre-mature and not competent is hereby dismissed. The respondent is at liberty to proceed departmentally against the petitioners as well as other civil servants strictly in accordance with law by providing all opportunities of defence and fair trial to the them.