2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Rao Muhammad Hassan/petitioner who is working as Accountant in Market Committee, Pakpattan Sharif, has filed this Constitutional petition seeking direction that Additional Director, Anti Corruption Establishment, Multan/respondent No.2 may be restrained to register a case under the Anti Corruption and Embezzlement Laws against the petitioner. 4 He has also sought a declaration that letter issued by the Administrator, Market Committee, Pakpattan Sharif, to the Additional Director, Anti Corruption Establishment, Multan/respondent No.2 may also be declared unlawful.

2. The sole ground of the petitioner is that since vide order, dated 20-4-2001 the Director of Agriculture/respondent No.4 has already imposed departmental penalties upon the petitioner as provided under Rules 4-a(ii) and 4-b(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1999, and his two increments were stopped and his rank was also reduced to a lower post of Senior Clerk, no criminal proceedings can 'be initiated against, him in accordance with Article 13(a) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

3. This contention of the petitioner is wholly misconceived and / untenable. The bare perusal of Article 13(a), which is being. reproduced:-- No person "shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once. " makes it very clear that bar of another trial operates only on a person who has already been tried by the competent Court for commission of an offence, either has been convicted or acquitted. It has nothing to do with the departmental inquiries.

4. The words same offence have been explained by the Hon ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Ayub v. The Chairman, Electricity Board, WAPDA, Peshawar, and another (PLD 1987 SC 195), which is as under:-- "The important words in the above provision are that same offence'. The word 'offence', while sometimes used in 'various senses, here implies a crime infringing/public as distinguished from mere private rights, and is punishable under the criminal law. Indeed this provision is a protection against double punishment and the punishment contemplated under Article 13 is a punishment that has been imposed upon a person as a result of a criminal prosecution. "

5. The departmental inquiries and disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant are meant to maintain purity of public servant which, indeed; is in the highest public interest. It was held in the case of Shafqat Mahmood Lodhi v. The Accountant-General, West Pakistan, Lahore (PLD 1968 Lahore 786), that:- "The whole object of initiating disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant is to maintain purity of public servant which, indeed is in the highest public interest. The object is certainly not to punish an erring civil servant in the criminal sense; that would require his trial in a criminal Court. It is because of this that when the facts alleged against a delinquent also constitute a criminal offence, he is separately tried by the criminal Court and the disciplinary action to adjudge his fitness for, further retention in public service can proceed simultaneously."

6. I am further fortified in my view that departmental penalty is no bar against criminal prosecution, by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan given in the case of Amir Abdullah v. Superintendent of Police, and others (1989 SCMR 333) wherein it was held. "In support of this petition it was first contended that as the petitioner had been acquitted of the criminal charge it was not open to the departmental authorities to take disciplinary action against him. This argument is without any merit. The objects of prosecution on a criminal charge and departmental disciplinary proceedings are entirely different; one relates to the enforcement of the criminal liability and the other is concerned with the service discipline."

7. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is misconceived and has no merit, which stands dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-598/L Petition dismissed.