MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J:- Through the instant writ petition the petitioner, Muhammad Nadeem Sajid, who is presently serving as Deputy Director, National Accountability Bureau ("NAB"), impugns four show cause notices and four notices for personal hearing.
2. Through the said notices issued on 03.01.2020, 23.02.2022 and 13.12.2023, the petitioner has been called upon to show cause as to why major penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed on him. With respect to all the said show cause notices, the petitioner has been called upon through letters dated 09.07.2024 to attend personal hearing on 11.07.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the inquiry report dated 19.07.2019, according to which, no cogent evidence was available that could substantiate the charges levelled in the charge sheet against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the show cause notices do not identify with particularity any violation of the law or standard operating procedures committed by the petitioner; and that the show cause notices are not in accordance with the law laid down in the judgments of the Superior Courts.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for NAB submitted that the petitioner had challenged show cause notice dated 03.01.2020 (which has also been challenged in the instant petition) before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh in C.P.No.D-1604/2020; that in the instant writ petition, the petitioner has concealed the factum as to the filing of C.P.No.D-1604/2020 before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh; that this concealment on the petitioner's part is sufficient ground for the dismissal of the instant writ petition; that the issuance of a show cause notice or the grant of opportunity of personal hearing cannot be treated as adverse orders so as to subject them to challenge in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court; and that it is in the realm of possibilities for the petitioner to come up with sufficient explanation during the personal hearing to avoid the imposition of the penalty on him. Learned counsel for NAB prayed for the writ petition to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.
6. It is not disputed that through the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged inter alia show cause notice dated 03.01.2020 issued to him by NAB. It is with respect to the said show cause notice that the petitioner has been required by NAB's letter dated 09.07.2024 to appear on 11.07.2024 for a personal hearing.
7. The petitioner is in attendance and does not dispute the position taken by the learned counsel for NAB that the said show cause notice dated 03.01.2020 had been assailed by the petitioner in C.P.No.D-1604/2020 before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh. The said petition is still pending and the next date of hearing is 07.11.2024.
8. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked as to why disclosure as to the filing of C.P.No.D-1604/2020 has not been made by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, he submitted that he had no information as to the filing of the said petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh. He however submitted, after taking instructions from the petitioner, that this Court may exclude from adjudication the legality of show cause notice dated 03.01.2020 and hear the case as regards the other show cause notices challenged in the instant writ petition. I am afraid such indulgence cannot be shown to a petitioner who conceals material facts from this Court especially of the nature as to the filing of an earlier petition on the same subject matter before a different Court.
9. In the certificate filed along with the instant petition, it is stated that this is the first writ petition filed by the petitioner before this Court on the subject matter. This is clearly untrue since earlier the petitioner had filed C.P.No.D-1604/2020 before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh challenging show cause notice dated 03.01.2020 which has also been assailed in the instant petition. In the case of Sajjad Ahmad Vs. Chairman, Capital Development Authority (2016 CLC 896), a civil revision petition had been filed without disclosure about the earlier litigation on the same subject matter.
This Court held inter alia that writ jurisdiction which has features common to revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC has consistently not been exercised in favour of a litigant who has concealed or suppressed a material fact from the Court. Furthermore, paragraphs 19 and 20 of the said report are reproduced herein below:- "19. The subsequent suit bears a certificate, which reads: "It is certified that no matter is pending adjudication between the same parties before any court of law". This is a crafty and a nefarious design by the petitioner to have the subsequent suit entertained without making disclosure of the earlier litigation, which had been decided in favour of CDA. The purpose behind the requirement of a certificate from a plaintiff or his counsel requiring disclosure of any pending or previous litigation between the parties is to prevent the defendant from being vexed twice. Even though, there had not been a full fledged trial in the earlier litigation and the learned civil court had rejected the petitioner's plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., it was nonetheless obligatory upon the petitioner to have disclosed this fact in the certificate as well as the pleadings in the subsequent suit.
20. Concealment of a material fact in the pleadings is akin to an abuse of the process of the Court. It is an elementary principle of law that a party, who approaches the court for discretionary relief, should candidly and forthrightly narrate all material facts in the plaint and/or the application for the grant of a temporary injunction. A litigant who had failed to make complete disclosure of an earlier litigation in the subsequent suit between the same parties, can be held to have abused the process of law and such an action was considered to be a deliberate attempt to hamper and obstruct due course of judicial proceedings in administration of justice.
The petitioner, in the subsequent suit, ought to have disclosed the factum about the earlier litigation between the parties and the result thereof."
10. On account of the concealment of the material fact as to the filing of the earlier C.P.No.D- 1604/2020 before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh, I am not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in the petitioner's favour. In taking this decision, reliance is placed on the following case law:-
(i) In the case of Abdur Rashid Vs. Pakistan (1969 SCMR 141), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favour of a petitioner who deliberately suppresses material facts from the Court.
(ii) In the case of Ramzan Vs. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (PLD 1968 Lahore 258), it was held that a petitioner who is guilty of suppression of material facts cannot be granted relief in equitable jurisdiction of the High Court regardless of the merits of the case. In the said case, the writ petitioner had concealed the factum as to the filing of the earlier suit on the same subject matter as the one on which the writ petition was filed.
(iii) In the case of Muhammad Saddiq Vs. Ruqaya Khanum (PLD 2001 Karachi 60), Justice S. Ahmed Sarwana, speaking for the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh, held as follows:- "15. It is indisputable that for proper administration of justice it is necessary that the parties who have knowledge of the facts present them in their true form before the Court and not conceal them. Accordingly, Allah has forbidden the Muslims from withholding or concealing the evidence relating to the issue to be decided by an arbiter. In Surah Al-Baqr II, Ayat 283, Muslims have been advised:- "Conceal not evidence, For whoever conceals it, His heart is tainted With sin. And Allah Knoweth all that ye do."
(iv) In the case of Dilawar Hussain Vs. District Coordination Officer (2004 CLC 324), it was held that where a petitioner conceals a material fact as to having availed the alternative remedy in his writ petition, the High Court will be competent to decline to interfere in the matter while exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction.
(v) In the case of Shaukat Medicos Vs. Government of the Punjab (2005 YLR 171), the petitioner in his writ petition had concealed a material fact as to the filing of an earlier suit on the same subject matter. The Hon'ble Lahore High Court refused to exercise discretion in favour of such petitioner by holding as follows:- "As the petitioner has concealed material facts qua not mentioning a single word with regard to filing of the suit by the petitioner against respondents Nos.2 and 3 in the Court of Civil Judge, Faisalabad, this fact brings the case in the area that the petitioner has concealed the material facts from this Court. It is settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character where the petitioner has concealed the material facts then it is a good ground not to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
(vi) In the case of Muhammad Akram Vs. Mansoor Sarwar Khan, Barrister-at-Law (2006 CLC 40), a writ petition had been filed without disclosing that on the same subject matter a writ petition had earlier been filed which had been dismissed. It was held by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court that the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is discretionary in nature and the purpose of this jurisdiction is to foster justice and right a wrong. The Hon'ble High Court allowed a review petition and set-aside a judgment passed in exercise of writ jurisdiction simply because earlier a writ petition on the same subject matter had been dismissed.
(vii) In the case of Bashir Ahmed Vs. Habib (2006 MLD 148), the petitioner had not mentioned the factum as to the filing of an earlier review application in his writ petition. He had also not filed a copy of the order passed on the earlier review application. The Hon'ble High Court of Sindh dismissed the petition by holding that the relief claimed under Article 199 of the Constitution is discretionary in nature and could not be granted as a matter of right. Furthermore, it was held that a petitioner renders himself disentitled to discretionary relief in case he approaches the Court with unclean hands.
Law to the said effect has also been laid down in the judgments reported as Lahore Development Authority Vs. Shamim Akhtar (2003 MLD 1543), Abdul Majid Vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2024 YLR 982) and Azim Khan Vs. Government of Punjab (2023 MLD 1611).
11. In view of the above, the instant petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/-.