2015 P Cr (PLP)

MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.

Mst. Riffat Parveen, the petitioner filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, contending that she was employed as a Lady Health Worker on 17-11-2004. At the time, the academic qualification for this post was Middle. However, she also submitted a certificate from a certain school to indicate that she was studying in the 9th Class. According to the petitioner, she developed differences with Muhammad Aslam, respondent No. 5, who is none other than her ex-husband. At his instance, Jafar Hussain, his first cousin moved an application with E.D.O. (Health), respondent No.6, complaining that the petitioner had secured the employment with the Health Department on the basis of bogus and fraudulent documents. After the holding of an inquiry, the petitioner was absolved of the allegations levelled against her. Undeterred, Jafar Hussain, the aforementioned approached the learned Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Multan by making an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Be that as it may, this application was disallowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace vide order dated 19-10-2013 (although the petitioner had not annexed the copy of the aforesaid application made under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. and the order passed thereon dated 19-10-2013 to the writ petition, the same is allowed to be brought on the record so as to do complete justice).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a third attempt was made by Jafar Hussain by coming up with another application. The third application was made to Regional Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan Region Multan, respondent No.1, who entrusted the same to Ch. Abdul Hameed, Assistant Director (Legal) Anti-Corruption Establishment. He conducted full-fledged inquiry, but found no substance in the allegations made against the petitioner, with the result that she was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer. He submits that respondent No.1 did not see eye to eye with the inquiry report made by Assistant Director (Legal), Anti-Corruption Establishment and urged him to undertake a fresh inquiry. He reaffirmed the findings earlier recorded by him, meaning thereby that he was of the opinion that no case needed to be registered against the petitioner under section 5-A of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1947.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that despite having been exonerated in two successive inquiries, respondent No.1 sent the complaint made by Jafar Hussain, respondent No.2 to a Circle Officer, Anti- Corruption Establishment, Khanewal. The second Inquiry Officer made an independent inquiry, but he also could not bring himself to agreeing with the allegations levelled against the petitioner. She was given a clean chit even in the third inquiry held in quick succession. Against this backdrop, when a fresh notice was sent to the petitioner to appear before the Circle-Officer, Anti-Corruption Establishment Khanewal for the second time for 10-2-2014, the patience of the petitioner wore thin. She was fed up with such an administration of justice. She was being singled out and harassed for such a treatment by the so-called law-enforces.

4. In this background, the petitioner approached this Court to seek a direction to respondents so as to restrain them from badgering and harassing her in the name of successive inquiries. Learned counsel for the petitioner concludes his argument by advancing the plea that respondent No.1 is misusing his powers and authority; and all the inquiries held or to be held against the petitioner stemmed from motives other than bona fides. As such, all the orders passed by respondent No.1 are a fraud on the Statute, and they are required to be struck down by this Court by exercising its powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

5. Syed Azhar Gilani, Circle Officer, present in Court on 19-2-2014 pointed out that he was the Inquiry Officer in respect of the third inquiry conducted against the petitioner and he had exonerated the petitioner from the allegations levelled against her and recommended that no case was made out against her.

6. Naseer Ahmad Khan, Regional Director, Anti-Corruption, Multan appeared in response to the notice issued to him. He submitted that he has had plenipotentiary powers to order inquiries under the Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985. He elaborated that on the one hand, no time-limit is set therein as to when an inquiry initiated by the Anti-Corruption Establishment is to be concluded nor has it been mentioned therein as to how many times such inquiries can be carried out against a particular person. In other words, this is open-ended for the competent authorities to go on ordering to make successive inquiries' against a person.

7. Mr. Muhammad Javed Saeed Pirzada, Learned Law Officer did not take any specific stand as to whether Anti-Corruption Establishment is vested with any such expansive and unbridled powers, as has been claimed by the Regional Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment. However, he was candid enough to opine that the starting of inquires against a person without end cannot be the intention of lawmakers. To be fair to him, he put forward the argument that once an inquiry officer recommends the dropping of an inquiry, there must be some compelling reason to reopen the same.

8. From the resume of the facts set out herein above, it is absolutely clear that a hapless woman has been made the target of successive inquiries by the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment in the name of unearthing forgery, on the basis of which the petitioner is alleged to have succeeded in securing employment with the Health Department. I have before me three final reports dated 13-9-2013, 28-10-2013 and 22-1-2014 in which the Inquiry Officers exonerated the petitioner from the allegations levelled against her by one Jafar Hussain. In all the three reports, it was concluded that the complaint made by Jafar Hussain was a motivated one and that there was no truth in the allegations made against the petitioner. Curiously enough, the first two reports were drawn up by Choudhary Abdul Majeed, Assistant Director Legal, Anti-Corruption, Multan, while the third report was prepared by Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Khanewal, who, as noted hereinabove, also appeared before the court and verified the contents of his report.

9. No doubt, under Rule 2(E) of the Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, the competent authority may accord permission to hold an inquiry or to order registration of a criminal case or drop the case after investigation or decide departmental action under the rules, but the question arises whether the competent authority has unlimited, unbridled and untrammeled authority to go on ordering the holding of inquiry after inquiry against a particular person until the victim either submits to the demands of the complainant, or to those of the Anti-Corruption Establishment or he/she yields to the unbearable pressure. I find no such thing in the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 which empowers a competent authority to go on witch-hunting. Such powers as are being claimed by the Regional Director of Anti-Corruption Establishment could never be within the contemplation of the lawmakers who allowed the government to make rules under the Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961.

10. It can hardly be overemphasized that the petitioner is an ordinary Lady Health Worker. She instituted a suit against Muhammad Aslam, her ex-husband and succeeded in getting a decree from a competent court of law. She also took out execution of the decree dated 12-3-2009. Since the judgment-debtor failed to pay the decretal amount of Rs.1,95,000, his warrants of arrest were issued. Apparently, this prompted the aforesaid judgment-debtor to bring his cousin, Jafar Hussain forward to make a complaint against the petitioner. Her father-in-law, namely, Allah Bakhsh also came to the rescue of his son, Muhammad Aslam, the judgment-debtor. In other words, Jafar Hussain, Muhammad Aslam joined forces and got the machinery of Anti-Corruption Establishment let loose against her. After undergoing the ordeal of successive inquiries, her patience wore thin and she knocked at the door of this Court to seek a direction to the Anti-Corruption Establishment not to harass her.

11. I have no doubt in my mind that respondent No.1, Regional Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment considers himself to be a law onto himself. He claims absolute powers in this day and age. I have no hesitation in holding that if such a person is not satisfied with the inquiries carried out by his subordinates, he has only himself to blame. Witch-hunting and that too of a poor, hapless lady health worker is too disgusting, to say the least. If the people of this Country are to really enjoy the fundamental rights, the superior Courts would have to be on guard. They would be required to evolve new mechanisms and put them in place to provide swift justice to the downtrodden. A rearguard action by the judiciary is the need of the hour to prevent the tyranny of laws and this instance is a case in point to highlight this aspect of the enforcement of special laws.

12. For what has been stated above, respondent No.1 is hereby restrained from harassing the petitioner in the name of carrying out inquiries against her under the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 or under any other laws on the subject, especially when two different inquiry Officers appointed by him in three successive inquiries have already found the allegations levelled against the petitioner baseless, groundless and unfounded, recommending the dropping of proceedings against her. Disposed of. HBT/R-14/L Order accordingly.