1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD MURTAZA and another Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EX OFFICIO), ANTI‑CORRUPTION ESTABALISHMENT, BAHAWALPUR and others
| Citation | 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MURTAZA and another Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EX OFFICIO), ANTI‑CORRUPTION ESTABALISHMENT, BAHAWALPUR and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD MURTAZA and another Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EX OFFICIO), ANTI‑CORRUPTION ESTABALISHMENT, BAHAWALPUR and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai for Petitioners. Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chattha, A.A.‑G. (on Court call).
- 4. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General who has entered appearance on Court call has raised a preliminary objection that petitioners are civil servants and they cannot invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court in view of Article 212 of the Constitution.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 2(a)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 212‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability of‑‑‑Bar of jurisdiction of other Courts as contained in Art. 212 of the Constitution‑‑‑Scope and effect Petitioners who were officials in Health Department had challenged through Constitutional petition enquiry proceedings conducted against them on allegation of corruption‑‑‑Petitioners had contended that matter having already been enquired into, initiation of second enquiry qua the same facts amounted to double jeopardy‑‑‑Petitioners who were civil servants were amenable to Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, thus, they could not invoke extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court in view of Art. 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan‑‑‑Petitioners could raise all legal objections qua legality of enquiry against them before Enquiry Officer. Respondent No. 4 in person.
Judgment & Decree
Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the enquiry proceedings being conducted by Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalpur on a complaint filed by Ghulam Rasool.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the above‑noted petition are that on an application moved by one Ghulam Rasool, levelling allegations of corruption against the petitioners (who are officials in the Health Department) an enquiry was initiated by Deputy Medical, Superintendent, BV Hospital, Bahawalpur who found that the allegations were false. The complainant moved yet another application before the Deputy Commissioner, who called a report from the M.S. BV, Hospital who reported that an enquiry had already been conducted and that no further action was warranted in law. On yet another application moved by the same complainant, Deputy Commissioner, directed the Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalpur to hold the necessary enquiry.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the enquiry proceedings on the grounds that the matter had already been enquired into and initiation of second enquiry qua the same facts amounts to double jeopardy; that the Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalpur is not competent to enquire into the matter in question as the petitioners are serving in the Health Department and only M.S., BV Hospital who is the Appointing Authority could be the Authorised Officer or any person nominated by him and that there is no provision in law to authorise the Assistant Commissioner to proceed with the enquiry in question.
4. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General who has entered appearance on Court call has raised a preliminary objection that petitioners are civil servants and they cannot invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court in view of Article 212 of the Constitution.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
6. Petitioners, are admittedly civil servants and therefore amenable to the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Even otherwise, the petition is premature petitioners may, if so advised, raise all the legal objections qua legality of the enquiry in question before the Enquiry Officer. If such objections are raised, the Enquiry Officer shall decide those objections in the first instance and then proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law. With this observation, the petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./M‑168/L Petition disposed of.