2019 PLP 427 (CLC)

SHAKEEL AHMAD, J.

Through the instant petition, petitioner Hidayat Ullah seeks initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents, failing to comply with the order of this Court dated 29.5.2018, passed in Constitutional Petition No.610-D/ 2018.

2. Brief facts of the case, out of which the present petition arises, are that the petitioner is Assistant Engineer (BS-17) and was posted as SDO CRBC-II, Irrigation Sub-Division, D.I. Khan pursuant to the recommendations of Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the petitioner along with other employees were held guilty for committing embezzlement of Rs.70.520 million without budget allotment DP 638 Paharpur Irrigation Division, D.I. Khan, and when the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) took cognizance of the matter, the petitioner voluntarily returned the embezzled public money amounting to Rs.124,341/- to the NAB, whereafter, pursuant to the judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the suo motu Case No.17 of 2016 dated 24.10.2016, show-cause notice for removal from service was served upon him on the ground that voluntarily return of embezzled public money amounts to guilty of misconduct and departmental proceedings were initiated against him. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed Constitutional Petition No.610-D/2014, against the respondents which was disposed of vide order dated 29.5.2018, with the direction to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, but shall not pass final order till the final disposal of the review petition pending before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in suo motu Case No.17 of 2016 dated 24.10.2016, but despite clear cut direction, the respondents failed to comply with the order of this Court and passed the final order imposing major penalty of reduction to the lower pay scale vide office order dated 30.5.2018, hence this petition.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is penalized by the inaction of the respondents. He next contended that the respondents are under legal obligation to honour the order of this Court, but they adopted the device to frustrate the judgment of this Court. He lastly contended that the act of the respondents is not only contemptuous, but also to lower the position of the Judiciary in the eyes of public-at-large, therefore, they are liable to be proceeded against for committing contempt of Court.

4. As against that, the learned Asstt: A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the order of this Court has been questioned before the apex Court. He next submitted that the respondents are law-abiding government officials and cannot think of committing the contempt of Court.

5. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is better and appropriate to reproduce operative part of the judgment of this Court:- "

6. Perusal of record reflects that pursuant to the judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the suo motu Case No.17 of 2016 dated 24.10.2016, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the ground that voluntarily return of embezzled public money amounting to Rs.1,24,341/- to the NAB tantamount to guilty of misconduct, however, the affectees filed review petition before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the suo motu Case No.17 of 2016 dated 24.10.2016, wherein the following order was passed:- Hearing of this case is adjourned till the first week of December, 2016. In the meantime, no final adverse/removal order shall be passed against any of the affectee.

7. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case, we disposed of this writ petition with the direction to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, but shall not pass final order till the final disposal of review petition pending before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the suo motu Case No.17 of 2016 dated 24.10.2016.

7. Plain reading of the aforesaid judgment would make it crystal clear that the respondents were directed to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, but shall not pass final order till the final disposal of the review petition pending before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, however, the respondents have not acted in consonance with the order passed by this Court and imposed the major penalty of reduction to lower pay scale.

8. It is now settled principle of law that nobody should be penalized by the inaction of the public functionaries as laid down in the case reported as Ahmad Latif Qureshi v. Controller of Examination Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore (PLD 1994 Lahore 3). It is also settled principle of law that everybody is bound to obey the command of the Constitution in view of Article 5(2) of the Constitution, as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Chaudhry Zahoor Elahi's case (PLD 1996 SC 383). The public functionaries are also bound to act in accordance with law in view of Article 4 read with Articles 189, 190 and 201 of the Constitution. Meaning thereby, to act within the framework of law and Constitution. Laws are made not to make them merely a statute book which are framed to act upon them, which are in consonance with Holy Quran, as enshrined in Surah Baqra. Strong and independent judiciary is sine qua non for a sovereign Islamic State. Concept of sovereign Islamic State minus a strong judiciary is unimaginable, if the judiciary of a country is stripped off its powers, the country would cease to exist as free nation, as laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in State v. Tariq Aziz and 6 others (2000 SCMR 751). Non-observance of the orders of the Court would definitely create a chaos.

9. The learned Asstt: A.G. stated that final order has been passed by the respondents under misconception and that they will be careful in near future. Therefore, we have taken a lenient view not to proceed against the respondents under contempt proceedings following the law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as Mst. Safia Bibi v. Mst. Aisha Bibi (PLD 1982 SCMR 494).

10. In view of what has been discussed above, we deem it appropriate to suspend the operation of the impugned order dated 30.5.2018, whereby major penalty of reduction to lower pay scale was imposed upon the petitioner till the final disposal of the review petition in the suo motu Case No.17 of 2016. With these observations, this petition is disposed of. ZC/351/P Order accordingly.