MRS. FAKHAR-UN-NISA KHOKHAR, J.- This may be considered as admitted case.
2. Brief facts of the instant case are that the petitioner was inducted as Sub-Engineer in WAPDA and later on his services were transferred to the Irrigation and Power Department. Petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer in Mughalpura Irrigation Workshop (M.LW.). Lahore when ar complaint was lodged by one Zaigham Abbas against him to the Chief Minister's Inspection Team On this complaint a report was called from the Irrigation and Power Department. Lahore. These allegations were looked in by a high powered committee who submitted a report to the Chief Minister's Inspection Team on 23-4-1993. The C.M.I.T. Recommended 8 other departmental actions to be initiated against the petitioner. Petitioner was charge-sheeted-on 1-11-1993. Khalid Ahmad Khail Chief Engineer was appointed as Inquiry Officer Preliminary inquiry conducted by Raja. Hussain Abbas Deputy Secretary General Irrigation and Power. Department who submitted report on 1-4- 1993. Lateron a regular inquiry was held on the same allegations tickled with another allegation No. V and the petitioner stood the inquiry. The inquiry report was concluded by .The Inquiry Officer on 21-12-1993. The Authorised Officer did not agree with the inquiry report and instead of dealing with inquiry -report within the provisions of rule 7-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Efficiency & Discipline Rules. 1975 recommended the de- novo inquiry and appointed Inquiry Officer namely Muhammad Akhtar Rami who refused to act as Inquiry Officer, lateron the inquiry was entrusted to Mr. Zaka Ullah Bhatti. Superintending Engineer, who delayed the inquiry for a longer term and on the very basis the inquiry was taken away from him and was entrusted to Mr. Muhammad Jahangir Khan.
Chief Engineer, Irrigation P & R Zone Lahore. The petitioner gave an application against the Officer and the inquiry .Was entrusted to a Committee consisting of Malik Ahmad Khan Chief Engineer Sargodha and Mian Abdul Ghaffar. Chief Engineer. Multan. This second inquiry is challenged through the instant writ petition by if petitioner on the premises that this js directed in violation of Rules 6(2) and 7 A of the Punjab Civil Servants Efficiency & Discipline Rules. 1975.
3. It is notable that without amending the charge-sheet Another charge No. 7 was added which is reproduced below:- "That you produced forged certificates, No. 48/A/69 and No. 16/B/71 for sections A and B Diploma of A.M.I.E. Pakistan, to the department, on the basis of which you managed illegal promotions to the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer and then to the rank of Executive Engineer. The verifications from the Institute of Engineers Pakistan/Bangladesh have revealed that Certificate No. 48/A/69 of A.M.EE. Section A was not issued to Mr. Javed Maqbool Ahmad and Certificate No. 16/B/71 of Section B has not been issued at all."
4. Rule 7-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Efficiency Rules. 1975 prescribes procedure to be observed the Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee. Rule 7-A as res-produced below:- "The Authorised Officer, on receipt of the report of the Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee, shall determine whether the charge has been proved. If it is proposed to impose a minor penalty he shall, after, affording the accused an opportunity of showing cause, against the action proposed, pass if it is proposed to impose major penalty, he shall, after affording the accused an opportunity to offer his explanation against his recommendations for imposition of major penalty, forward the case to the authority alongwith the charge-sheet, a statement of allegations served on the accused, explanation of the accused the finding the Inquiry Officer or the Inquiry Committee, as the case may be, and his own recommendations regarding the penalty to be imposed, in case it is proposed to drop the proceedings, the authorised Officer shall-submit the case with all relevant, material documents to the Authority for appropriate orders."
It is also notable that the Department has initiated criminal prosecution, on the same charges where the petitioner has taken a clear stand that he cannot be prosecuted as he stands exonerated through Departmental Inquiry by the. Inquiry Officer. He has submitted separate writ petition which is still pending in this Court and the proceedings stayed. Now without prejudice to the Writ Petition No. 4383/93 the Department is ready to hold an inquiry on the new charge as reproduced above to the exclusion, of the charges already inquired into by the Inquiry Officer as the same is still within their jurisdiction to refer the same to the Authorised Officer to take appropriate action in respect of inquiry report in view of the clear provisions, of Rule 7-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts the stand taken bv the Department and submits that petitioner is ready to face the new charge provided they will n6t hold the second inquiry on the rest of the allegation already inquired into the Inquiry Officer namely Khalid Ahmad, Khan, Chief Engineer.
5. Be that so, the instant writ petition stands partly accepted to the extent that the petitioner shall not face another trial on the same allegations which stand already concluded by the Inquiry Officer and which still has to be proceeded on by the Authorised Officer in view of the provisions of Rule 7-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1975. The Department may initiate the departmental action on the charge No. 7 as re-produced above and may appoint afresh Inquiry Officer or the Inquiry Officers already appointed by them subject to the rights of association of the accused-petitioner and conclude the inquiry within a month of receipt of this order. Writ petition stands decided in view of what has been discussed above.