2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

A.G. Tariq Chaudhry for Petitioner. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.-G. and Sher Zaman Khan, D.A.-G. for Respondents. The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the respondents proceeded against the petitioner under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and awarded major penalty to the petitioner alongwith his co-accused vide order dated 23-4-2003. Respondent No. 1 appointed Authorized Officer Rai Muhammad Ameen, who had conducted the inquiry and found the petitioner innocent. Respondent No. 1 directed the said authorized officer to de novo inquiry and the Inquiry Officer in the second inquiry, found the petitioner guilty and recommended for major punishment. The petitioner being aggrieved filed representation before the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab. Respondent No. 1 sent the case of the petitioner to National Accountability Bureau (NAB) qua the same set of facts against the petitioner. On the complaint of respondent No. 1, NAB summoned the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved field this writ petition.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1 has no lawful authority to refer the case of the petitioner to NAB Authority. He further submits that the NAB has no lawful authority to initiate proceedings against the petitioner on the same set of facts and the petitioner has already been awarded major punishment under the law in the departmental side. He further submits that action of respondents Nos.2 and 3 is hit by Article 13 of the Constitution and section 26 of General Clauses Act and Section 403 Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, he reified upon the following judgments. Sabir Aziz v. Sessions Judge, Lahore and others (2000 PCr.LJ 204). Manzor Hussain v. The State (PLD 1998 Lahore 239). Peer Bakhsh v. The State (1997 PCr.LJ 24). There is no judgment on these pages. (1997 PCr.LJ 1197) and (1997 PCr.LJ. 1248).

3. The learned law officers entered appearance on Court's call, they submit that the writ petition is not maintainable.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

5. It is settled principle of law that the writ petition is not maintainable against the summons/show-cause notice, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mst. Shagufta Begum's case (PLD 1989 SC 360) and Nabi Bakhsh Khan Khoso's case (2000 SCMR 1017). It is also settled principle of law that criminal proceedings as well as departmental proceedings can be initiated simultaneously, which are not dependent on each other. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police v. Anees-ur-Rehman Khan (PLD 1985 SC 134) and Talib Hussain v. Anar Gul Khan and 4 others (1993 SCMR 2177). The petitioner has more than one alternative remedies under the law, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable as 'per principle laid down by the Honouable Supreme Court in "Sindh Quality Control Board of Drug and another v. M/s Pioneer Laboratories, Karachi and 6 others (1993 SCMR 1177). Article 13 of the Constitution, section 403 Cr.P.C. and section 26 of the General Clauses Act, are not applicable in the circumstances of the present case. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the law laid down by the Superior Courts in the following judgments:-- Syed Alamdar Hussain's case (PLD 1978 SC 121). Muhammad Abbas's case (PLD 1981 SC 642). Ismail A. Rehman's case (PLD 1990 Karachi 286). It is pertinent to mention here that the judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner, are distinguished on facts and law as in the cited cases, the point involved was that the petitioner could not be tried qua some offence, whereas in the present case, the petitioner was awarded major punishment under the departmental proceedings and there is no bar to initiate proceedings in the criminal side against the petitioner as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./A-831/L Petition dismissed.