The petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition to assail the orders dated 14-2-1993 and 19-12- 1992 passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively as being void without jurisdiction and an outcome of political pressure.
2. The petitioner's learned counsel urged that after thorough investigation conducted by the Anti- Corruption Department the petitioner was found to be innocent and the charges levelled against her were not proved. Despite that, the departmental action was recommended and initiated against her with mala fide intentions. He has referred to the letter said to have been written by the then Minister for Industries and Mineral Development Department (Annex. `E'). He adds that at one stage the petitioner had incurred displeasure of the higher authorities because some PTC teachers were selected by the District Recruitment Committee, Jhang and she was required to appoint them but she refused to do so on the grounds that the District/Divisional Recruitment Committees had already been disbaned by the Government of the Punjab vide Letter No. SOR-III-2-122/89, dated 24-11-1990 and that fresh appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff were banned for three month vide Government of Punjab No. SOR-III (S& GAD)-2-90/90, dated 12-12-1990: On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General -denied the correctness of the letter allegedly written by the Minister. He added that no such letter was ever received in Education Directorate. He further submits that the departmental action was initiated in the normal course on the recommendations of the Additional Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Faisalabad embodied in his Letter No. ACE. FSD. 199/12110, dated 19-12-1992 and that the: same, was not mala fide.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the Assistant Director, Faisalabad vide his detailed report dated 21-7-1.992 had held that none of the allegations levelled against the petitioner were proved during the investigation of the case. In view of the staid report, the criminal case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 16 dated 4-10-1989 with the Anti-Corruption Establishment was dropped. Thus, the petitioner was saved from criminal proceedings and trial.
However, there was no bar under the law to initiate the departmental inquiry against the petitioner.
The Additional Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment was competent to make the recommendation in the exercise of powers vested in him under Rule 15(1)(B) of the Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985. There is nothing to show that the Additional Director had acted with mala fide intentions at the behest of any political person. Letter dated 4-5-1992 allegedly written by the Minister for Industries was addressed to the Director Education Department and was meant to secure the petitioner's transfer. It was not sent to the Additional Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment and had nothing to do with the recommendation for initiating departmental action against her. The petitioner shall have full opportunity to place her defence before the competent authority/ Inquiry Officer. It is hoped that the Inquiry Officer shall conduct the inquiry impartially and independently strictly in accordance with the law.
4. For the foregoing discussion, this petition is dismissed, with the above observation.