2002 PLP 777 (YLR)

5. In Writ Petition No. 1325‑Q of 2000 F. I. R. No.652 dated 4‑11‑1999 registered against the petitioner under sections 420, 468 and 471 P.P.C. at Police Station Yazmana is sought to be quashed. The allegations in this F.I.R. are that the petitioner had removed the record of Halqa Chak No.65/D.B. and that he had fraudulently substituted forged and fictitious mutations in place of the original.

6. A common allegation in the aforesaid criminal cases were that the official record was recovered from the custody of the petitioner after conducting police raid.

7. The quashment is sought in all the aforementioned cases on the ground that the petitioner being a Patwari was a public servant and that under section 3 of the West Pakistan Anti‑Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961, only the Anti‑Corruption Establishment can investigate the offences made in the F.I.R. which are scheduled offences under the Ordinance of 1961. It is contended that a prescribed procedure has been laid down for investigation of the scheduled offence under the Punjab Anti Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 and that by specific provision of the said Law and the Rules, no Agency other than the Anti -Corruption Establishment has jurisdiction to investigate in the matter. It is contended that the entire proceedings commencing from the lodging of the F. I. R. and ensuing investigation is coran‑non‑judice.

8. On the other hand, the learned Law Officer has contented that the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of corruption and inefficiency vide order of the competent Authority dated 12‑6‑1997. The cases were registered against the petitioner more than 2 years after his dismissal from service and that the petitioner cannot claim to be tried under the provisions of West Pakistan Anti Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961 or the Punjab Anti‑Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985.

9. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally on 21‑5‑1997. A show‑cause notice was issued to him under Rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975. The Authorised Officer after the necessary disciplinary proceedings recommended the imposition of major penalty upon the petitioner. Vide order dated 12‑6‑1997 passed by the A.C/Authority, Yazman, the petitioner‑was found guilty of misconduct as being corrupt and inefficient and was accordingly dismissed from service.

10. All the cases registered against the petitioner were lodged more than 2 years of his dismissal. It is also evident from the record that the petitioner had earlier applied for pre‑arrest bail at least in two other cases registered against him vide F.I.R. No.310 dated 12‑5‑1999 at Police Station Yazman and F.I.R. No.464 dated 26‑6‑1999 at Police Station Yazman. F.I.R. No.310 of 1999 was registered under sections 420, 468, 471 P.P.C. while F.I.R. No.464 of 1999 was registered under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 170/109 P.P.C. The bail was granted to the petitioner vide orders dated 8‑7‑1999 passed by this Court in Criminal Miscelleouneous No.2962‑B of 1999 and Criminal Miscelleouneous No.3728‑B of 1999 respectively. It is pertinent to note that in neither of these bail applications, the contention as is raised in the present petitions was made. The orders passed by this Court in bail matters do not also reflect any such contention of the petitioner.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Muhammad Sharif v. S.H.O, Police Station City Hafizabad and another PLD 1997 Lahore 692 to contend that in accordance with the provisions of West Pakistan Anti‑Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961, it is only the Anti‑Corruption Establishment which has the authority in the investigation of offences set forth in the scheduled or institute inquiry into the conduct of any public servant. He also made reference to rule 8 of the Punjab Anti Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, to urge that criminal cases shall be registered against public servants only by the Establishment in the manner provided therein. He also placed reliance upon the case of Riaz Ahmad Tahir v. The State and others PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Lahore) 80 wherein the F.I.R. lodged at the ordinary police station against a Patwari in the Revenue Department was quashed.

12. The main question which is relevant in the present case is that the petitioner has already been dismissed from service on the ground of misconduct, inefficiency and corruption by the competent Authority after holding disciplinary proceedings as for back as on 12‑6‑1997. The allegation made against the petitioner in all the cases relate to the period much after his dismissal and include the forging of signatures of the complainant of the F.I.R. even after their retirement.

13. The purpose and object of providing protection to public servants has been aptly recorded in the case of Muhammad Sharif (supra) which is reproduced as under:‑ "The wisdom behind the registration of the Anti‑Corruption cases regarding scheduled offences directly at Anti‑Corruption Establishment is that the provision of inquiry at the end of the said Establishment before the registration of the case has also been provided and it is simply to save the reputation and honour of the public servant. It may be that in the inquiry he stands exonerated before the registration of the cases and has not to go through the ordeal as the accused of any other case registered with local police which he has cancelled under section 169, Cr.P.C. or who may be acquitted under section 249‑A Cr.P.C/265‑R Cr.P.C. or after holding of a full -fledged trial.

14. Obviously, the afore-stated object is relevant only in respect of public servants who are in service when the case is lodged against them. That it is only relevant for such civil servants is also evident from the tenor of Rules, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and .10 of the Rules, 1985. Under Rule 6, preliminary inquiries and investigations are to be initiated against the public servants by the Establishment. Rules 7 and 8 specified the Authorities who may initiate such action. Under rule 10, as soon, as after registration of a case against a public servant, the Establishment shall inform the Appointing Authority so that disciplinary action is also taken if so desired.

15. In the instant case however, according to the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the petitioner, he has already been dismissed from service on the grounds of corruption etc. and it shall be idle for the petitioner to seek quashment of the criminal cases registered against him on the ground that the investigation into allegation of scheduled offences ought to have been conducted by the Punjab Anti‑Corruption Establishment.

16. According to the learned Law Officer, the investigation in all these cases has been completed and challan has also been forwarded to the Court of competent jurisdiction.

17. For all these reasons, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for quashment of the criminal cases registered against him. The writ petitions have no merit which are hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑1029/L Petition dismissed.