Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner has called in question validity of inquiry proceedings pending against him before Mr. Farhan Aziz Khawaja, he Managing Director, Punjab Small Industries Corporation, Lahore (Respondent No.. 4).
2.Succinct facts, relevant for the disposal of instant petition, are that the petitioner retired from government service on 19.05.2009 when he was working as Deputy District Education Officer (Elementary Male). By virtue of order, dated 07.07.2010 passed by the Chief Minister/competent authority penalty of withholding of 50% pension was imposed against him. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed an Appeal (No. 3391-2010) before the Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore which was accepted, vide judgment dated 26.07.2011 and the matter was remitted back to the competent authority for assessm ent of exact loss caused to the public exchequer due to conduct of the petitioner. As the proceedings against the petitioner have not been concluded despite expiry of 90 days, as stipulated by PST, he has filed the instant petition.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no inquiry can be initiated against a government servant after one year of his retirement; that if the departmental authorities were not satisfied with the period stipulated by PST they could move for extension of time; that the petitioner was exonerated in three consecutive inquiries conducted by the Anti-Corruption Authorities, therefore, continuation of departmental proceedings after expiry of time stipulated by PST is a nullity in the eye of law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the case reported as Mat.
Badshah Begum and others v. The Additional Commissioner (R) Lahore Division and others (2003 SCMR 629) and Syd Raza Mehdi Baqari v. Province of Punjab through Secretary. LG & CD Department and 2 others (2016 PLC (C,S.) 1046).
4.Conversely, learned Law Officer, while controverting the assertions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as final order has not been passed against the petitioner, instant petition is pre-mature; that the findings of. PST regarding stipulation of period shows that the same was only observation and not a direction; that according to Section 23 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability (PEEDA) Act, 2006 proceedings initiated against a government servant cannot be called in question before any forum and that instant petition is barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Relies on Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others v. Province of Sindh and others (2015 SCMR 456).
5.Learned counsel for the petitioner, while exercising his right of rebuttal, submits that the petitioner has not claimed anything on the basis of his acquittal in criminal case rather he has challenged maintainability of proceedings pending against him after the expiry of period stipulated by PST; that in Section 1(4)(iii) of PEEDA Act, 2006 the word "shall" has been used meaning thereby the same is mandatory in nature.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents annexed with this petition as well as the case-law cited at the bar.
7. To resolve the controversy involved in this petition a perusal of Section 1(4)(iii) of PEEDA Act, 2006 is of paramount consideration which for facility of reference is reproduced herein below: "1. Short title, extent, commencement and application.--(4) It shall apply (i)
(ii)
(iii)retired employees of Government and corporation service; provided that proceedings under this, Act. are ' initiated against them during their service or within one year after their retirement."
A perusal of the afore-quoted provision of law renders it crystal clear that proceedings can be initiated against a government servant within one year of his retirement. Insofar as case in hand is concerned, on the basis of deficiencies pointed out by the Audit Department the competent authority ordered for Inquiry against the petitioner on 01.01.2009 whereas the petitioner retired from government service on 19.05.2009 meaning thereby that the proceedings were initiated against him prior to his retirement, thus, the provisions of Section 1(4)(iii) of PEEDA Act, 2006 are of no help to the petitioner.
8. Insofar as the plea of the learned counsel that the petitioner has come to this Court for implementation of judgment passed by PST is concerned, suffice it to note that though the order passed by competent authority was set aside by PST, however, proceedings .against the petitioner were not quashed rather the matter was remitted back to the competent authority for re- assessm ent of the loss caused to the Natioiral Exchequer due to acts of the petitioner. No clear cut direction was issued by PST regarding conclusion of proceedings within a specified time frame rather expected that the matter would be decided within 90 days, therefore, no exception can be taken against the proceedings pending against the petitioner on the said ground.
9.Now coming to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 21 of PEEDA Act, 2006, proceedings initiated against the petitioner were to be completed within two years I am of the view that upon recommendations of the Inquiry Officer penalty was imposed against the petitioner within two years of his retirement, thus, the case of the petitioner does not fall within the mischief of said provision. If the petitioner is aggrieved of pendency of proceedings pursuant to judgment passed by .PST he could approach the said forum afresh but could not invoke the jurisdiction of this Court in view of the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Had the matter not been decided by the competent authority within two years from the retirement of the petitioner the position would have been entirely different.
10.As far as assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that proceedings against the petitioner cannot be allowed to inure for an indefinite period, is concerned, this Court agrees with the learned counsel for the petitioner as the persons at the helm of affairs cannot be allowed to tinker with the fate of retired employees by prolonging fate of proceedings pending against him.
11.Now coming to the case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner I am of the view that the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of instant case inasmuch as in the case of Mst. Badshah Begum and others (Supra) the apex Court of the country inter-alia decided that period stipulated by a statute cannot be extended/relaxed by a Court of law but when the petitioner himself acquiesced with the findings of PST regarding re-assessment of loss caused to the National. Exchequer he has no cheeks to challenge pendency of proceedings against him on the ground that the same are either hit by Section 1(4)(iii) or 21 of PEEDA Act, 2006. So far as case of Syed Raza Mehdi Baqari (Supra) is concerned, in the said matter the order of the competent authority was set aside by this Court on the ground that proceedings could not be concluded within two years from the retirement of the petitioner but in the instant case, at the cost of repetition, it is observed that penalty was imposed against the petitioner consequent upon completion of Inquiry proceedings well within the time prescribed under Section 21 of PEEDA Act, 2006 which, however, was subsequently set aside by PST.
12. For what has been discussed above, instant petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed with a direction to Respondent No. 1 to ensure finalization of proceedings pending against the petitioner within two months positively from the receipt of certified copy of this order.
Office is directed to immediately transmit a copy of this order to Respondent No. 1 for further necessary action and compliance.