' The relevant facts for the decision of this Constitutional petition are that petitioner No,1 is employed as XEN while other petitioners are serving as S.D.Os. In the Public Health Engineering Department and posted at Gujranwala. They have prayed through this Constitutional petition that the revival of concluded inquiry declaring the petitioners innocent is illegal and without lawful authority. The petition came up for limine hearing on--8-2-1999 when Rana Muhammad Arif, learned Additional Advocate-General appeared on Court's call and was directed to obtain instructions. The needful has been done. "
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that originally the inquiry was conducted by the Anti-Corruption Establishment at the behest of one Barkat Ullah, Contractor and the allegations " were found false. It is added that respondent No,1 has no jurisdiction or authority to order fresh inquiry in the matter in view of Rule 5 of Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985. It is argued that no inquiry as per Rule 7 and policy of the Anti-Corruption Establishment could be carried on the basis of anonymous or synonymous complaints.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General argued that the inquiry was conducted by Assistant Director (L-IV). The findings were accepted by Deputy Director (General). Howes or, respondent No,1 did not agree with the above" findings and ordered fresh inquiry respondent No,2. It is added that the Deputy Director is not the final authority in the matter. It is explained that the inquiry would be conducted strictly in accordance with law and rules.
4. I have given my anxious consideration lo the arguments and gone through the record. The Deputy Director (General) put up the final inquiry report for the orders of respondent No,1 after recording his recommendations. It is, therefore, clear that the Deputy Director was not competent to close the file and accordingly submitted to the Director.
5. Now coming to the argument that the complaint was synonymous or anonymous. The learned counsel referred to the reports on various notices issued to the complainant. The objection should be raised before respondent No,2 who would also look into this aspect. The time has come when the anonymous complaints which prima facie are supported by the documents has to be looked into. It is made clear that these observations are subject to prima facie documentary proof and not otherwise.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition is dismissed in limine.