' Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that anonymous complaint was filed before the Secretary Ihtasab Cell, Islamabad against the petitioner which was forwarded by the Deputy Secretary Prime Minister's Secretariat, Islamabad to the Chief Secretary Government of Punjab with the request that an investigation in the matter may kindly be initiated at the earliest and the findings be sent to the Secretariat for further necessary action on 28-4-1997. The Chief Secretary of the Province of Punjab sent the same to the Secretary S&GAD as the petitioner is working as draftsman in the office of the Assistant Director Local Government and Rural Department, Gujranwala. On 18-11-1997 S.O. Of S&GAD sent the same to the Directorate of Anti- Corruption Establishment, Punjab. The Directorate of Anti-Corruption Establishment Punjab sent the same to the Circle Officer Anti-Corruption Establishment Narowal to probe into the allegations through a comprehensive inquiry. The Additional Director Anti-Corruption Establishment after examining of the material sent the case to Director Local Government and Rural Development Lahore to conduct a departmental inquiry under Punjab Civil Servant Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. Petitioner being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No,11418 of 1998 and also attached the inquiry report along with the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 12-6-1998 in the following terms: "The Director Anti-Corruption Establishment Punjab Lahore was directed to look into the matter personally to ensure that the petitioner is not dealt with otherwise than in accordance with law."
' The inquiry was initiated against the petitioner under the E&D Rules of Civil Servant Punjab, 1975 and competent Authority imposed the following penalty under the aforesaid rules:-- "Reduction of a lower stage by three (3) steps in the time scale with effect from 19-3-1999."
' Muhammad Azam filed an application against the misconduct of the petitioner that he had made huge property by using his office by way of bribe addressed to the following authorities:--
(i) President of Pakistan.
(ii) Prime Minister of Pakistan.
(iii) Commissioner Ihtasab Cell.
(iv) Chairman Central Board of Revenue.
(v) Commissioner Income Tax and Deputy Commissioner Income Tax.
' On the basis of the aforesaid application the Assistant Director Anti-Corruption, Directorate of Anti-Corruption Punjab Lahore and Circle Officer Establishment Anti-Corruption Lahore sent notices to the petitioner to attend the office of the aforesaid officers. Hence the present writ petition against the aforesaid notices issued by the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that original application was filed by Muhammad Azam and subsequent application was also filed by Muhammad Azam who has enmity with the petitioner. He further stated that Anti-Corruption Establishment investigated the case thoroughly and sent the case to the Director Local Government and Rural Development Lahore for initiation of inquiry against the petitioner under E & D Rules of Civil Servant Punjab, 1975. Petitioner as mentioned above under the aforesaid inquiry penalised and major penalty was awarded to the petitioner to the extent reduction to a lower stage by three (3) steps in the time scale with effect from 19-3-1999. Therefore, respondents have no authority whatsoever to issue fresh notice to the petitioner on the same allegations as the same is hit by Article 13 of the Constitution. He further stated that once the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the competent Authority under E & D Rules. The respondent has no authority whatsoever to send the impugned notices to the petitioner in the criminal side. Muhammad Azam filed Civil Miscellaneous No, 2 of 1999 to implede him as respondent in the writ petition. The same was allowed just all exceptions vide order, dated 15-9-1999.
2-A. Learned Additional Advocate General contended that petitioner was not awarded any punishment in the criminal side. Therefore, same is not hit by Article 13 of the Constitution. He further urged that writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has challenged the impugned notice through this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for newly added respondents contended that the petitioner has made huge property by misusing his office by way of bribe. Therefore, action of the respondent is in accordance with the law.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. Successive investigations are hit by Article 13 of the Constitution or not. It is pertinent to mention here that the word 'Prosecution' is mentioned in Article 13 of the Constitution which is not synonymous to the word "investigation". According to the Webster's New International Dictionary the prosecution means inter alia, "the process exhibiting formal charges against an offender before a Legal Tribunal, and pursuing them to final judgment on behalf of the State or Government has by indictment or information. This proposition of law has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Alamdar Hussain Shah's case PLD 1978 SC 121 and observed as follows:-- "The marginal heading indicates that this Article is a protection against double punishment, which tends to show that it is only where the prosecution has finally concluded and ended either in acquittal or conviction that a fresh prosecution for the same offence would be barred."
' This proposition of law was also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Abbas case PLD 1981 SC 642 and observed that the word Prosecution means "Judicial determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused". Karachi High Court (PLD 1990 Karachi 286) also considered Article 13 and laid down meaning of word "Prosecution" means initiation or starting of proceedings of criminal nature before a Court of law or a judicial tribunal in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Statute.
"In Ballantine's Law Dictionary third edition page 662 Investigation means" in a more complete sense an inquiry judicial or otherwise, for the discovery and collection of facts concerning a certain matter or matters." According to section 4, Cr.P.C.(L) investigation includes all the proceedings under the Code for the collection of evidence conducted by police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf. "
In view of what has been discussed above, Article 13 of the Constitution is not attracted in the present case. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was awarded punishment under E & D Rules. It is settled proposition of law that departmental and criminal proceedings can be initiated independent of each other as the principle laid down in the following judgment (1993 SCMR 2177). It is also settled proposition of law that writ petition is not maintainable against the show-cause notice as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shugufta Begum's case PLD 1989 SC 360. It is the prerogative of the respondent to investigate the matter as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shahnaz Begum's case PLD 1971 SC 677 and Brig: Imtiaz case 1994 SC 2142. Petitioner is well within his right to agitate the matter before the respondents by filing a reply of the notice. The respondents are duty bound to look into the reply of the petitioner and then proceed in the matter. It is not only duty of the Investigating Agency to investigate the matter to connect the accused with the commission of offence but it is also duty of the Investigating Officer to collect the evidence to bring on truth to save the innocent persons from the agony of endless investigation and trial.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.