ABDUL SHAKOOR, J. Petitioner Javed Iqbal, through the instant writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has made the following prayer: "It is therefore, most humbly prayed, that this Hon'able Court may be pleased to accept this writ petition and declare that the impugned order No.476 dated 14.1.2017 issued by respondents is illegal, void ab-initio and without lawful authority and consequently the same may be set aside."
2. Brief but relevant facts as per averments in writ petition are that the petitioner was charged in a criminal case registered vide FIR No. 24 dated 22.9.2007 under section 9(c) CNSA, Police Station Anti Narcotics Force, Kohat, was tried by the learned Judge, Special Court (CNS), Peshawar and ultimately convicted and sentenced vide judgement dated 15.2.2010 to life impriso nment with a fine of Rs.10,00,000/- or in default to undergo further S.I for one (01) year with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The said conviction, was challenged before' this Court (Peshawar High Court) in appeal which was dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner was maintained. After execution of the sentence in Central Jail Haripur and after fulfillment of codal formalities, petitioner was released by respondent No.3 in the month of August, 2014. After lapse of two and a half years, respondent No.3 issued office order No. 476 dated 14.1.2017 to the Chief Capital Police Officer, Peshawar with the direction to re-arrest the petitioner and admit into jail to undergo his remaining A sentence. Being aggrieved with the said of fice order has filed this writ petition.
3. Comments were .called from the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 which were submitted, according to which the petitioner fraudulently got himself released from Central Prison Haripur by manag ing to get a remission of 1080 days (03 years) through bogus documents. The matter was published in newspaper notice of which was taken, record of the present petitioner/convict along with others was checked and it was-found that they have prematurely been released from Central Prison on award of bogus education remission, therefore, upon the orders, of the competent authority , letters were issued to all the concerned for re-arrest of all the convicted prisoners inducing the present petitioner to undergo the remaining portion of their sentence.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. Perusal of record would reveal that the present petitioner being convicted to life imprisonment in the above referred case was released in the year 2014. In consequence of a news clipping, an inquiry was conducted and record of the petitioner along with other convicts who were released was checked and it was reported that they were prematurely released in view of the remission granted by the jail authorities which was obtained by production of fake documents. Therefore, the impugned letter was issued upon the order the competent authority , directing the re-arrest of present petitioner/convict and other convicts for undergoing the remaining portion of their sentence.
6. We have checked the record of the case but did not find any clue that the petitioner had escaped the jail/prison by breaking the same. The petitioner was released by the jail authorities itself and if there was any fraud, a separate criminal case should have been registered against the present petitioner and the jail officials who had played an active role in the episode and responsible for his release but there is nothing available on record to show the same. It is well settled principle of administration of justice that no one should be penalized for the inaction or non-action of public functionaries. It was for the respondents to have properly checked and inquired into the authenticity of the documents or the remission order . In the present case, the respondents/jail authorities were so lethargic and negligent that for a long period of two and half years, they did not take any step in regard to the alleged fraud of the petitioner . While the matter was highlighted in a newspaper , they woke up from deep slumber and started to look into the matter in shape of inquiry which too, was carried out on back of the present petitioner .
The respondents, in order to arrive at just and logical conclusion, should have associated the present petitioner in the inquiry proceedings. This was a lapse on the part of the respondents for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible and thus, for such negligence on part of the jail authorities, his liberty cannot be curtailed, particularly , when he has already undergone major portion of his sentence.
7. For what has been discussed above, the instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned order No. 476 dated 14.1.2017 is set aside.