' Ghazab Khan petitioner has brought this petition for the withdrawal of bail allowed to respondent Fazalur Rehman by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, N.-W.F.P. Vide his order, dated 18-11- 1998.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner moved an application, dated 16-8-1997 before the D.S.P., Anti-Corruption, Abbottabad to the effect that the respondent, namely, Fazalur Rehman got himself employed on 1-1-1992 in the Police Department as Foot Constable through forged school certificate.
3. He further alleged that the respondent was not qualified for the post and had intentionally defrauded the Government and had caused heavy losses to the public exchequer.
4. After proper inquiry on the aforesaid application a case under section 409/420/ 468/471/477-A, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2), P.C. Act was registered against the respondent vide. F.I.R. No,3 of Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Kohistan on 26.9-1998 and he was arrested accordingly, where after he was allowed bail which has been impugned before this Court.
5. The inquiry revealed that the respondent had submitted a forged certificate of 9th class whereas he had acquired education up to 6th class, the basic qualification for the recruitment of Foot Constable in those days being Middle Pass Certificate.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and Assistant Advocate-General. The learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection upon the maintainability of the petition, as according to him no private person could file the present petition as he was not an aggrieved person. It was the Police Department to have initiated this move.
7. Admittedly there are allegations that the respondent has defrauded the Police Department by his alleged act but it was for the Department concerned to have initiated departmental inquiry against him under the Police Rules. This exercise so far as has not been initiated by the Department concerned.
8. In the instant case only permission has been accorded by the Government for the prosecution of the accused. He is yet to face the departmental inquiry. This fact would suggest that his case falls within preview of further inquiry besides the department has not moved the present petition. It has been moved by the petitioner who has previous enmity with him.
9. For the reasons stated above I am of the view that the Special Judge has exercised his discretion after having assessed the material available before him and that the respondent after receiving bail has not misused the concession allowed to him. The order impugned needs no interference and the petition is, therefore, dismissed.