Through this constitutional petition, Abdul Mateen petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 02.08.2022 passed by respondent No.2, whereby a fresh Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct inquiry proceedings against the petitioner and other officials on the charges of inefficiency and misconduct as set forth in the earlier order dated 25.01.2018 under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline & Accountability Act, 2006.
2. Brief facts behind filing of instant writ petition are that petitioner was posted as Executive District Officer Education at Bahawalnagar on 31.12.2016 and thereafter said post was declared as Chief Executive Officer (District Education Authority); that on the basis of complaint dated 24.08.2017 sent by Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar to Secretary Schools Education the inquiry proceedings under the PEEDA Act 2006 were initiated against the petitioner in which Director Public Instruction (Secondary) Lahore was appointed as inquiry officer; that during the pendency of first inquiry, the Secretary Govt. of the Punjab, School Education vide letter dated 28.09.2017 recommended to initiate "First Probe" against the petitioner on the basis of same allegation/complaint in which Additional Director Public Instruction (Secondary) was appointed as Probe Officer. The petitioner submitted the written reply on 14.11.2017 but the inquiry proceedings could not be completed within the stipulated period; that vide letter dated 25.01.2018 the Secretary Govt. of the Punjab, School Education again issued direction for initiation of fresh inquiry (Second Inquiry) under PEEDA Act, 2006 against the petitioner on the basis of similar allegation/complaint in which Managing Director Punjab Education Foundation, Lahore, was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition No.2288 of 2018 and vide order dated 07.03.2018 a direction was issued to Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore to decide the 'Representation/Application" of the petitioner within a period of one month in accordance with law/rules/policy and meanwhile the operation of impugned order dated 25.01.2018 was also suspended by this Court; that in the light of direction issued by this Court, the case was referred to the Chief Minister, Punjab, Competent Authority who vide letter dated 24.12.2020 appointed Mr. Azhar Mehmood, Principal (BS(20) Government Model Comprehensive High School, Okara as Hearing Officer before the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings; that thereafter in the light of letter dated 24.12.2020 the petitioner appeared before the Hearing Officer who finally exonerated the petitioner form all the charges except those relating to the poor performance in enrollment campaign and the matter is under scrutiny in the School Education Department; that on 02.08.2022 after elapse of one year, the respondent No.2 passed an impugned order dated 02.08.2022 whereby in partial modification to the Department's Inquiry order dated 25.01.2018 a fresh Inquiry Officer was appointed in place of Managing Director Punjab Education Foundation Lahore to conduct inquiry proceedings against the petitioner on the charge of inefficiency and misconduct as set forth in the earlier order dated 25.01.2018 under the PEEDA Act, 2006.; that during process of these inquiries the petitioner was retired from Government Service on 16.01.2022 on attaining the age of 'superannuation'. The validity and authenticity of abovementioned order i.e 02.08.2022 passed by respondent No.2 has been called in question through instant constitution petition.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Perusal of record reveals that on the basis of complaint dated 24.08.2017 sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar to the Secretary Government of Punjab, School Education, the inquiry proceedings under the PEEDA Act 2006 were initiated against the petitioner who was performing his duty as Chief Executive Officer (District Education Authority) Bahawalpur in which Director Public Instruction (Secondary) Lahore was appointed as inquiry officer to proceed against the accused officer in terms of section 5 (1) (b) read with section 9 of the PEEDA Act, 2006 and to conduct inquiry into the following charges if inefficiency and misconduct"
"He reported enrollment of students of his District i.e. Bahawalnagar, in Katchi Class on 03.05.2017 as 32623 whereas in factual it was 1243 only which tantamounts to inefficiency and misconduct on his part"
The petitioner submitted the written reply to the charges levelled against him vide letter dated 13.09.2017. During the pendency of first inquiry, the Secretary Govt. of the Punjab, School Education vide letter dated 28.09.2017 recommended to probe into the matter regarding reference/complaint dated 24.08.2017 sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar against the petitioner on the basis of same allegation/complaint in which Additional Director Public Instruction (Secondary) was appointed as Probe Officer. The petitioner again submitted the written reply to the charges levelled against him. It is also evident from the record that vide letter dated 25.01.2018 the Secretary Govt. of the Punjab, School Education again issued direction for initiation of fresh inquiry (Second Inquiry) under PEEDA Act, 2006 against the petitioner on the basis of similar allegation/complaint in which Mr. Tariq Mahmood, PMS (ex-PCS)/BS-20, Managing Director Punjab Education Foundation, Lahore was appointed as Inquiry Officer to proceed against the accused official. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition No.2288 of 2018 and vide order dated 07.03.2018 a direction was issued to Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore to decide the 'Representation/Application" of the petitioner within a period of one month in accordance with law/rules/policy and meanwhile the operation of impugned order dated 25.01.2018 was also suspended by this Court. In compliance with order dated 07.03.2018 passed by this Court, the case was referred to the Chief Minister, Punjab, Competent Authority who vide letter dated 24.12.2020 appointed Mr. Azhar Mehmood, Principal (BS(20) Government Model Comprehensive High School, Okara as Hearing Officer/ Inquiry Officer. The petitioner appeared before the Hearing Officer/ Inquiry Officer who finally exonerated the petitioner from all the charges except those relating to the poor performance in enrollment campaign and the matter is under scrutiny in the School Education Department. The respondents did not comply with the provision of section 13 (7) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Disciple & Accountability Act, 2006 as according to said section, it was incumbent upon the respondents / competent authority to decide the matter within the stipulated period on receipt of the report from the inquiry officer or inquiry committee. On 02.08.2022 after elapse of about one year, the respondent No.2 passed an impugned order dated 02.08.2022 whereby in partial modification to the Department's Inquiry order dated 25.01.2018 a fresh Inquiry Officer was appointed in place of Mr. Tariq Mahmood, PMS (ex- PCS)/BS-20, Managing Director Punjab Education Foundation, Lahore to conduct inquiry proceedings against the petitioner on the charges of inefficiency and misconduct as set forth in the earlier order dated 25.01.2018 under the PEEDA Act, 2006. It is pertinent to mention here that during process of these multiple inquiries the petitioner was retired from Government Service on 16.01.2022 on attaining the age of `superannuation. It is evident from the record that petitioner was exonerated from the main charges in the previous inquiry conducted by the Hearing Officer/ Inquiry Officer (Mr. Azhar Mehmood, Principal (BS-20) Govt. Model Comprehensive High School, Okara) . Undisputedly, the petitioner is being prosecuted/ is being made the subject of repeated inquiries, which offends the specific provisions of Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan as the petitioner cannot be vexed twice for the same charges/allegation or cannot be prosecuted repeatedly. It is an admitted fact that after final adjudication of the matter by the competent authority the same cannot be permitted to reopen. This fundamental principle of law which has been embodied in our Constitution that once a person was prosecuted and acquitted from the charges, he cannot be subsequently prosecuted repeatedly for the same allegation. Article 13 of the Constitution sanctifies the well settled principle of law that no person will be tried for the charges on the same set of facts on which he has already been exonerated or convicted. Even after retirement the petitioner was continuously victimized on one pretext or the other as he was dragged into repeated inquiries through different modes. So far as pendency of inquiry against the petitioner is concerned, record reveals that the petitioner is being made a subject of repeated inquiry, which otherwise does not seem fair, particularly, when the proceedings of the inquiry are going on and on for a number of years. Furthermore in the case cited as Muhammad Masood Joya Vs. Government of the Punjab and others (2000 PLC (C.S) 864) this Court observed that when a Government servant retires, he is in a peculiar state of mind i.e he is without any job, he has a family to settle and in this highly status conscious society, he has no status to bank on. It was perhaps, keeping in view this state of mind that the Government issued instructions which admittedly are still in vogue which are to the effect that if the inquiry is not concluded within a year of Government servant's retirement, the pension and gratuity must be sanctioned, therefore, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against after one year of his retirement. Reliance in this regard is placed on the cafe reported as Khalid Imran Khan Barki Vs Government of Punjab and others (2021 PLC (C.S) 426).
5. For what has been discussed above, instant writ petition is accepted and impugned order dated 02.08.2022 passed by respondent No.2 to the extent of the petitioner is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to release all pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner forthwith.