CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.---Briefly the facts of the case are that some senior officers of Works Department had made a complaint against the corruption in the Ministry of Housing and Works to the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan on 17.4.2012 with a request for taking suo motu action. Thereafter different inquiries at the departmental side as well as by FIA were conducted and the petitioner along with other officers/officials of the said department was found to have embezzled government funds allocated for certain schemes. After completion of the inquiries, an FIR No,117 of 2013 dated 25.10.2013 under sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 109, P.P.C. Read with sections 5(2), 47, P.C.A. At Police Station FIA Anti-Corruption Circle, Lahore was registered. Since the petitioner has dual nationality, the respondents have got her name entered in the Exit Control List vide order dated 07.11.2013 passed by respondent No,1, which has been challenged by the petitioner through the instant writ petition mainly on the ground that she has to attend the marriage ceremony of her daughter to be scheduled on 12.01.2014 at Toronto Canada.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been serving as an Executive Engineer in PWD; that a complaint had been made by some officers of the department against the alleged corruption in the Department, which was reported to be false and frivolous by the concerned Ministry of Housing and Works after, thorough inquiry, that the departmental proceedings were initiated against the said group of complainant officers and they were placed under suspension, that the petitioner earlier filed W.P. No,26835/2013 and this Court vide order dated 22.10.2013 while passing an injunctive order directed the respondents not to take any adverse action against the petitioner but in spite of that subsequently an FIR No,117/2013 has been registered on 25.10.2013 against the petitioner, which has been followed by the order dated 07.11.2013 passed by respondent No,1 for placing name of the petitioner on the ECL at the request of respondent No,2, that the impugned order for placing the name of the petitioner at the ECL has been passed without making any probe into the so-called allegations or affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, that the marriage ceremony of daughter of the petitioner has been scheduled for 12.01.2014 in Toronto Canada where the daughter of the petitioner is presently residing and the allied functions will start from 10/11-01-2014, that the petitioner being mother has to go there to join the said ceremony, that the impugned order is non-speaking, arbitrary and mala fide, which has been passed in violation of the fundamental rights as envisaged by Articles 9 and 10A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, that the petitioner being a public servant enjoys protection under the law and the respondents without conducting inquiry about the authenticity of the allegations cannot impose restriction upon the petitioner to go abroad for participation in the marriage ceremony of her daughter by placing her name on the ECL, that no independent inquiry was conducted by the department or the FIA, but the same was conducted by one of the officers, who made the complaint, that name of petitioner has been placed at the ECL without following the proper procedure and taking into consideration that no public interest was involved in the matter in hand through the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside while allowing this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments reported as Mian Ayaz Anwar v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior and 3 others (PLD 2010 Lahore 230) and Shariq Imran Khan v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2003 YLR 3104) in support of his contentions.
3. Conversely the learned Standing Counsel while appearing on behalf of the respondents has argued that there is sufficient material available on the record to prima facie connect the petitioner with the charges of corruption and misappropriation of huge public money, that person of the petitioner is required for the purposes of investigation and recovery purposes, who is on interim pre-arrest bail for the last more than two months by the court of the learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore and if her name is removed from the ECL, then there is every possibility of her escape from law, who has been found guilty of the offence during the inquiries conducted by the department as well as FIA, that no ground of emergent nature exists to remove the name of the petitioner from the ECL and the restriction has been imposed upon the petitioner for proceeding abroad in good faith and to safeguard the public exchequer through the impugned order, which has been passed after adopting the prescribed procedure and this writ petition having no force is liable to be dismissed.
4. Arguments heard record perused.
5. The impugned order for including the name of the petitioner in the Exit Control List had been passed under section 2 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 and for ready reference the said provision is reproduced hereunder:- "Power to prohibit exit from Pakistan.-- (I) The Federal Government may, by order, prohibit any person or class of persons from proceeding from Pakistan to a destination outside Pakistan, not withstanding the fact that such person is in possession of valid travel documents.
(2) Before making an order under subsection (1), it shall not be necessary to afford an opportunity of showing cause against the order.
(3) If, while making an order under subsection (1) it appears to the Oderal Government that it will not be public interest to specify the grounds on which the order is proposed to be made, it shall not be necessary for the Federal Government to specify such grounds (emphasis supplied). "
6. A bare perusal of the above said provision makes it clear that the Federal Government has been empowered to restrain any person from exiting outside the boundaries of Pakistan to any foreign State and subsection (2) thereof also clarifies that it is not obligatory upon the Federal Government to afford an opportunity to the person against whom such an order has been passed. The said provision also provides that the reasoning for passing the proposed order may not be explained in the public interest, if it so appears to the Federal Government. Moreover, section 3 of the Ordinance ibid provides for a right of review within 15 days of making of the order under section 2 by providing a right to an aggrieved person to make a representation to the Federal Government setting out in the representation the grounds on which he seeks the review.
7. It is an admitted fact that a complaint had been lodged by the high ups of the department before the Human Rights Cell set up by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan and then during the inquiries conducted at the departmental level, the petitioner, along with the other officers was found guilty of misappropriating an amount of Rs,43 million. A large quantum of public exchequer is involved and the petitioner is stated to be required to the different agencies for further probing the matter. During the arguments when confronted with the query by this court that whether the petitioner has applied for ex-Pakistan leave and the NOC has been granted by the competent authority, the learned counsel for the petitioner has simply replied that the petitioner is a dual national, but failed to produce any such record.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced on the file an envelope containing an invitation card for marriage ceremony of the daughter of the petitioner, which contains recipient's address as 192 TECH Society, Lahore Punjab Pakistan 54590 while the sender's address has been recorded as Unit No,606, 55 DC Bors Dr. Toronto, ON, M3JOG5 Canada. This is a private document, which cannot form sufficient proof for deleting the name of the petitioner from the ECL, who has been charged with the allegation of misappropriating the public exchequer in huge quantity. Even otherwise, the petitioner also failed to produce any authentic document like booking of the Hall at Toronto Canada to conduct the marriage ceremony. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant case as in none of the said cases neither the petitioners were involved in the embezzlement of huge public exchequer nor their names were deleted on the ground of participation in the marriage ceremony of their close relation in abroad.
9. It is not denied that besides the departmental inquiry an inquiry was conducted by officers of the FIA, Anti-Corruption Circle as well wherein the petitioner along with others has also been found involved in the misappropriation of public exchequer. So there is left no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that inquiry had been conducted by one of the complainants, who is interested in the prosecution of the petitioner being inimical towards her and certain applications were made by her for change of the inquiry. In the present case public exchequer to the tune of Rs,43 million is alleged to have been misappropriated and, therefore, the public interest is very much involved.
10. During the course of arguments it has come on surface that the petitioner and her husband are presently residing in Pakistan who are also in government job here, whereas the alleged bridegroom is a Pakistani national as well, but surprisingly the marriage of the petitioner's daughter seems to be suddenly scheduled to have been performed at Toronto Canada as no such ground had been earlier taken in the application seeking pre-arrest bail, which is pending for the last more than two months. Moreover, the petitioner has not so far applied to her parent department for granting ex-Pakistan leave or issuance of NOC in this regard and even no such documents of her husband, who is also in government job, have been produced on the file to show the bona fide of the petitioner. In such facts and circumstances, there is found force in the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel that there is a reasonable belief that if the petitioner is allowed to go abroad, she will make escape from law and proceedings of the case involving embezzlement of huge public exchequer will be hampered. Therefore it cannot be said that the action taken against the petitioner in the present case was either unreasonable or that the same was not in public interest. No doubt, the grounds for placing the petitioner's name on ECL were not communicated to the petitioner but nevertheless if there was any flaw in the impugned action, no prejudice is shown to have been caused to petitioner because she had a right of filing a review petition before the competent authority as discussed above and without availing the said remedy, this writ petition was not maintainable.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any sufficient ground to issue direction for removal of the name of the petitioner from A the ECL during the pendency of the criminal case involving embezzlement of huge public exchequer, who is stated to be required for investigation and recovery purposes as still she is enlarged on ad interim pre-arrest bail for the last more than two months. On the other hand the petitioner has failed to make out any valid ground involving the urgency of emergent nature to remove her name from the ECL while interfering with the order dated 7.11.2013, which has been passed by respondent No,1 after following the proper procedure and it cannot be declared to have been issued without jurisdiction or any authority. This writ petition having no force is dismissed.
12. Before parting with this order, I am constrained to observe that the petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner is pending for the last more than two months in spite of that no restraint order has been issued by this court and mere pendency of the writ petition provides no justification for lingering on the bail applications pending before the court of competent jurisdiction, which have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. The learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore is directed to ensure that bail application filed by the petitioner is decided as early as possible in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made by this Court in this order in any manner.