This single order disposes of Writ Petitions No. 748 of 1994 and No. 5317 of 1993.
Malik Ghulam Ahmad, who is a Consolidation Patwari, has filed this writ petition, with a prayer that he may not be posted any where else, on shifting from `circle' Bait Mir Hazar Khan, during his suspension period, and further that the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Alipur, District Muzaffargarh (respondent) be directed not to accept any political pressure, including that of the Revenue Minister, and act strictly in accordance with law, in holding the enquiry under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975.
2.In so far as the second prayer is concerned, it will not be denied that, every civil servant is supposed to conduct himself lawfully in the discharge of his public duties, and for doing the needful no mandate by this Court is required and no writ need be issued.
3. The learned counsel has not been able to show to the Court any rule requiring that a Government servant facing an enquiry must be kept at the same `station', nor has he been able to convince the Court that any fundamental right of the petitioner, as common citizen of the State, has been infringed, warranting interference by this Court, in exercise of its extra--ordinary writ jurisdiction. The mere fact that he has been posted at a far-off place, after having been placed under suspension and he would face difficulty in appearing before the Enquiry Officer, and his right of hearing resultantly would be prejudiced, would not entitle him to remain at his previous place of posting. The enquiry against him does not vest him with the right to cling to a station of his choice.
Actually it appears that by remaining there he intends to interfere with the process and wangle things, manipulate the record, and influence people having been complaining against his integrity.
To say that the Enquiry Officer will hush up things and hoodwink the process would not be correct.
Why should he do it, without standing to gain anything from such an act? Why should he damage career of his subordinate for nothing?
4. The assertion that the Authority has not applied its independent mind and has proceeded against the petitioner, on having succumbed to political pressure, or that the proceedings against him are tainted with mala fides, is something, which every person, on involvement in a criminal case or enquiry proceedings, would readily plead, and has become a `fashion' these days. It is a demagogy, it is just a jugglery of words, to describe the act of suspension as arbitrary, fanciful, illegal and void, liable to be struck down, or justifying a declaration in the said terms.
5. Suspension may constitute a hardship, may bring in its wake humiliation and embarrassment, but it is not 'a punishment, and cannot be brought under challenge, although an adverse order passed against a public servant, in consequence of a departmental enquiry held against him, may be assailed in the proper forum, namely, Service Tribunal, else before the higher departmental authority. So, obviously this Court cannot straightaway declare him to be innocent in the matter and come to his rescue, in the manner asked for, since the allegations, on the basis of which he has been suspended, evidently require a regular enquiry, for determination of correctness thereof.
6. The petitioner is certainly a clever, if not crooked, revenue official. Earlier he filed Writ Petition No. 5317 of 1993, asking that the order of his suspension, dated 4-12-1993, be declared to be without lawful authority, having been passed against canons of equity and natural justice and in derogation of the norms and principles laid down by the Superior Courts. Use of such phrases again has become customary with the lawyers, representing people, considering themselves to be aggrieved, and are repeated in parrot-like fashion, without really meaning anything else, an obsessive and a perverse bid is made not to understand the true import thereof. Precious time of the Court is wasted; and frivolity, which such petitions exceedingly abound in, do not permit the Courts to do real work and dispose of genuine litigation pending over decades. One can only wish, learned lawyers avoid it and guide the litigants along righteous lines, sincerely suggesting to them adoption of a permissible course, invocation of legal provisions and recourse to a proper forum, consciously and resolutely refusing to be misled themselves by their treacherous and tricky clients, with allurement for income. A Muslim has the belief that livelihood, which a person is destined to earn, during his lifetime, is I apportioned by God Almighty, once for all, one may choose to remain fair and honest, or he may employ foul means, to make his living. Why should then any one deliberately resort to unfair practices in the field of his profession, or in any other sphere of activity, and incur for him ignominy in this world and Allah Almighty's displeasure in the world hereafter?
7. On entertaining the previous petition, recently on 12-1-119, this Court conceded to the petitioner interim relief, with a notice: to the respondents (A.C. Alipur and D.C. Muzafargarh), in terms: if he was still working as Patwari, in the circle in question, he would have the permission of the Court to continue functioning in the same capacity. The A.C. Submitted a reply on 30-1-1994, and afterwards on 3-2-1994 furnished his parawise comments. It was stated that there were large many complaints against the Consolidation Patwari about his having received illegal gratification from the owners of land of the revenue estate under consolidation. The Tehsildar Jatoi was asked to make a preliminary probe and he submitted his report on' 10-11-1993, recommending that the petitioner be placed under suspension. Instead of associating himself with the enquiry, he adopted a defiant attitude, and although he was suspended, and also shifted, he did not hand over the charge over several weeks, and straight he came to this Court by filing a writ petition. Then, giving an impression that a stay order had been issued in his favour on 12-1-1994, he managed to stay at the same place. His stand was that he had not been served with a notice and had been condemned unheard, although, as pointed out by the A.C., one Iqbal Leghari had approached him for favour and had also made an application in writing to the D.C. Refuting the allegations against the official and vouchsafing for his integrity, which development would not leave any doubt about the fact that the Patwari was not ignorant of the enquiry proceedings against him and was not unaware of the order of suspension either. A4 regular enquiry has now been initiated and an authorised officer has been appointed. The Patwari is stated to have been indulging in politics and party faction, besides being a known corrupt official. Although for sometime he has been serving on the consolidation side, the administrative control continues to be with the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, and the A.D.C, (G) has ordered regular enquiry against him, after having satisfied himself about justification for the same, in consequence of the preliminary enquiry. On the one hand, the Patwari says that no preliminary enquiry has been conducted, and on the other hand he also admits that an enquiry was initiated against him, but with no justification. It would follow that the same was in his knowledge, and he intentionally absented himself from the proceedings of the preliminary enquiry. He had been summoned for hearing by the Tehsildar; but it has wrongly been said that a fictitious report had been secured about service having been effected upon him. This is yet another assertion, which has become an `order of the day', is dishonestly made and more often than not turns out to be incorrect and untrue.
8'. In his report dated 29-1-1994, received here on 30-1-1994 (through special messenger), R.I Muhammad Amin, A.C. Alipur said that the petitioner did not produce the stay order dated 12-1- 1994, issued by this Court, and continued to work in the same capacity, and the Authorities permitted him to do so, in deference to the stated stay order of this Court, and practically cancelled the transfer order, so that the injunction order of this Court, as pleaded by the petitioner, was not violated. It is revealed that the petitioner had misrepresented, he misguided his superiors, and actually made a misuse of the process of the Court, in a delusive manner.
9. In the proceedings of Writ Petition No. 5317 of 1993, this Court had to make itself clear by ordering (on 6-2-1994) that the previous order dated 12-1-1994 did not amount to issuance of a stay order stricto senso, and as the Patwari had already been suspended and transferred, he had no longer the protection of the stay order and could agitate his right of reinstatement on having recourse to his superiors. On being unsuccessful in getting the order of his suspension undone, and having failed to foil the transfer order, in the proceedings of Writ Petition No. 5317 of 1993, the Patwari has filed another Writ Petition (No. 748 of 1994), close on the heels of the order dated 6-2-1994 of this Court, passed in the previous petition; and the purpose is exactly the same. Transfer from his present circle is sought to be restrained and enquiry proceedings are intended to be intermeddled and smothered, and for these untenable and undeserved reliefs extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked. Patwaris, like employees of certain other Government Departments, have their strongholds and they do not want to leave the same at any cost.
10. It is highly deplorable, on the part of the petitioner. The same gentleman has drafted both the petitions. The mode adopted by the petitioner must be deprecated with the disdain it deserves. It is a misconceived move and must not be permitted to meet success. The Court shall have to consciously act and not deal with the matter in routine, lending to the defiant civil servant a helping hand for furtherance of his nefarious designs. The petitioner just does not seem to believe in any norms; he declines to abide by the service discipline, and refuses to be proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, governing service matters and conduct of Government Servants. He could have approached the higher authorities, with a request that he may not be transferred to a far-off place; and if he had any defence to disprove the allegations of corruption and misconduct against him, it was open to him to set up his defence and prove his innocence by joining the enquiry proceedings. He has no escape but to face the enquiry. This is the only permissible course open to him; and he cannot be allowed to defy the lawful orders of his superiors, and that too through the agency of this Court.
11. I would dismiss both the writ petitions (No. 5317 of 1993 and No. 748 of 1994), with costs of Rs.5.000, which the petitioner would deposit in the State Exchequer, under the appropriate `head'. If he commits default in the matter, the Revenue Administration shall enforce it. A copy of the order shall, without delay, be conveyed to the A.C. Alipur, by name --- R.I Muhammad Amin.