P L D 2004 Supreme Court 51 (PLP)

Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th September, 2003. HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.--This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3-6-2002 in Appeal No. 134 of 2002 (Syed Ali Shah Bukhari v. Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and another) passed by learned Chairman of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the said appeal was dismissed, thereby the order dated 21-7-2001 passed by Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Punjab, as well as order of the Chief Secretary Punjab, Lahore, dated 12-12-2001 was maintained with regard to the compulsory retirement of the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as Deputy District Attorney in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jhelum The competent authority vide letter dated 28-4-2001 ordered for initiation of enquiry against the petitioner under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 who was also supplied st4tement of allegations dated. 13-4-2001 which contained that he, while posted as such in the said Court of Additional District Judge, Jhelum took Rs.3,52,000 as bribe from one Faiz son of Muhammad Hayat in the name of Presiding Officer, thereby was guilty of misconduct and corruption within the meaning of section 3(b) and (c) of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, therefore on account of said omission and commission on his part he was liable to disciplinary action which could call for imposition of one or more penalties prescribed in section 3 of the said Ordinance. The said amount of bribe was given by the complainant to the petitioner for the acquittal of his son and other relatives who were involved in a murder case F.I.R. No.93 of 1997 under section 302, P.P.C. of Police Station Pind Dadan Khan pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge when the petitioner demanded sum of Rs. Five Lacs for its payment to the said Presiding Officer through him out of which a sum of Rs.3,52,000 was paid in presence of witnesses and balance of Rs.1,48,000 was to be paid on later date. The petitioner submitted his written defence dated 7-5-2001 to the Enquiry Officer in respect of allegations wherein he denied the allegations against him. The Enquiry Officer appointed by competent authority conducted detailed enquiry, examined the witnesses from both sides, in his report came to a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of charges and recommended his compulsory retirement to the competent authority. The copy of report alongwith show-cause notice dated 30-5-2001 was supplied to the petitioner. The competent authority/Secretary Law after compliance of subsection (2) of section 3 of said Ordinance (IV of 2000) imposed penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner with all pensioner benefits as per impugned order dated 21-7-2001. The petitioner made representation before the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, which was also rejected as per order dated 12-12-2001. The petitioner then approached the Punjab Service Tribunal by filing Appeal No. 134 of 2002 which appeal was also dismissed maintaining the orders passed by both respondents.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was exonerated of the charges of misconduct and corruption as the enquiry conducted by the Additional Director Anti-Corruption was dropped, thereafter applications made against him were also consigned to record, therefore, the inquiry ordered by respondent No.2 under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 by serving him statement of allegation, was not sustainable in law.

5. The learned Chairman of the Punjab Service Tribunal in the impugned judgment has observed that the complainant Faiz had moved the Anti-Corruption Establishment against the petitioner but he alongwith witnesses resiled under pressure and hope that the amount of bribe taken by the petitioner would be returned to him when the Anti-Corruption Establishment not only dropped the proceedings but also recommended for initiation of proceedings against the complainant under section 182, P.P.C. but when the petitioner played clever, instead of returning bribe amount coercion was practised to browbeat the complainant then in the circumstances the latter revived his grievance. It may also be observed that the enquiry as laid down under the said Ordinance was in fact initiated by respondent No.2 who being competent authority could initiate or order for the same. Investigation or the inquiry conducted by the Anti Corruption Establishment which too was dropped cannot be equated with an inquiry held subsequently under the law. It may also be stated the rule of double jeopardy would not be applicable to the proceedings which did not end with the final finding holding the petitioner to be not guilty of the charge by the competent authority under the law in force. Earlier enquiry proceedings conducted by Anti-Corruption Establishment against the petitioner were independent from the enquiry ordered by the competent authority under section 3 of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, there could be, therefore, no double jeopardy in the instant case. Reference made to Aijaz Nabi Abbasi v. Water and Power Development Authority and another 1992 SCMR 774 at 782 and (ii) Muhammad Ayub v. The Chairman, Electricity Board, WAPDA, Peshawar and another PLD 1987 SC

195. In the instant case Mr. Shafiq Ahmad, Enquiry Officer was appointed by respondent No.2, who after recording the evidence of both the parties and hearing them came to right conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and of taking bribe in the name of Judicial Officer when the competent authority after hearing the petitioner passed the impugned order. We find no legal or factual infirmity in the impugned orders passed by respondents who on the contrary have taken a lenient view of compulsory retiring the petitioner, blessing him with all benefits, when charge of taking bribe in the name of Judicial Officer was an act which called for severe punishment against the petitioner. We also find that learned Service Tribunal has addressed to all the pleas of the petitioner correctly in accordance with law, therefore, there appeared no ground for our interference. Respondent No.1 also rightly, correctly and legally affirmed the decision of respondent No.2.

6. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, leave to appeal is declined, and the petition is dismissed. M.B.A./A-417/S Petition dismissed.