2012 PLP 2788 (YLR)

RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.

The petitioner has prayed that respondents Nos.1 and 2 be directed to forward the result of inquiry against respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court for necessary action against them. It was further prayed that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents Nos.3 to 4 be restrained from discharging their duties as Judicial Officers. It was stated that the petitioner is the complainant of case F.I.R. No.289 of 2009 dated 26-3-2009 under sections 420/468/471/419/467/34, P.P.C. Police Station North Cantt., Lahore. Abdul Ghafoor one of the accused persons was arrested by the police on 24-8-2009 and produced before respondent No.4 on 25-8-2009 for physical remand to effect the recovery of forged and fabricated stamp paper and the money allegedly received by him through fraud. It was urged that respondent No.4 rejected the request for physical remand and remanded the accused to judicial custody after obtaining a sum of Rs.50,000 as bribe. Subsequently Naveed and other accused was arrested, who had admitted during remand that he received a sum of Rs.8,00,000 out of the total amount of Rs.96,00,000/. A sum of Rs.1,50,000 was recovered from him and he promised to get the remaining amount of Rs.6,50,000 recovered within two months. It was alleged that respondent No.4 again joined hands with the accused and admitted him to bail even without summoning the police record and issuing notice to the petitioner. It was alleged that he suffered loss of Rs.50,00,000 due to unlawful exercise of discretion by respondent No.4. He submitted an application before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court on 11-11-2009 for an inquiry and necessary action against the respondent which was forwarded to the District Judge, Lahore and the inquiry was conducted by respondent No.1 but the petitioner has not been included in the inquiry proceedings although it was imperative to grant him an opportunity to prove his allegations. He alleged that respondent No.1 was deliberately delaying the inquiry proceedings. It was stated that a sum of Rs.16,00,000 was recovered from Abdul Ghaffar, and a sum of Rs.24,00,000 was recovered from Tanveer Hussain, whereas a sum of Rs.30,00,000 was yet to be recovered but respondent No.3 granted him bail illegally although his first bail application had been withdrawn and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. It was alleged that the bail was granted in illegal exercise of the discretion in order to get illegal gratification and the illegal order deprived the petitioner of an amount of Rs.30,00,

000. He contended that he submitted an application before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court and also endorsed the copy to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan. He contended that respondents Nos.1 and 2 be directed to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to prove his allegations and the inquiry be conducted regarding allegations levelled by him.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no action was taken on the applications of his client although serious allegations were levelled against both the Judicial Officers. It is however admitted that the petition for cancellation of bail granted to the accused was dismissed by this Court.

3. The learned A.A.-G. has contended that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of Article 199(5) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

4. This Court has its own effective and reliable system of accountability of Judicial Officers. The Member Inspection Team Office is basically responsible for processing the complaints received against the Judicial Officers (CO,CG &CC). The office of Director General of HR & VC also keeps a sharp eye on the working and conduct of the Judicial Officers and places the files for orders before the Inspection Judges. Any Judicial Officer involved in corruption or any instance of misconduct has to face the disciplinary action. The policy of zero tolerance of corruption of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan has been fully adopted by this Court. Both the complaints by the petitioner (CO No.301 of 2010 and CC No.142 of 2009) were minutely examined and put up for orders of the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, who was also Inspection Judge for District Lahore. These were filed vide orders dated 15-5-2010 and 10-5-2010 respectively. The petition for cancellation of bail granted by the officer complained against has been dismissed on judicial side. The allegation appears to be result of dismay and annoyance over unfavourable orders passed on judicial side and the remedy was availed of by the petitioner under the law but he remained unsuccessful. The allegation that the Registrar or Member Inspection Team deliberately caused any delay in processing the complaints is absolutely incorrect because time is consumed in verification of facts. Under Article 199(5) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan the High Court is not a 'person' within the meanings of Article

199. No writ petition can be filed against the internal working of this Court. Any person aggrieved of such orders can approach the Vigilance Cell, Member Inspection Team or Complaint Cell of this Court, which have been established with the sole object to ensure transparent administration of justice in the Province.

5. For the reasons supra, the petition is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed. KMZ/A-112/L Petition dismissed.