Transfer of inquiry

2021 PLC(CS) 1578 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 199 & 212Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityCivil serviceDisciplinary proceedings against civil servantTransfer of inquiryMala fideScope

Petitioner (constable in the office of Excise and Taxation Department) sought transfer of inquiry pending alleging mala fide on the part of the Inquiry Officer

Held, that bar contained under Art. 212 of the Constitution was absolute and inflexible, therefore, the question of mala fide as well as the authority of the Inquiry Officer (respondent) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, admittedly a civil servant, could not be looked into by the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2012 PLD 903 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 187Issue and execution of processes of Supreme Court

Alleged business deal between respondent (businessman) and petitioner (son of serving Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) attempting to influence the judicial process

Transfer of inquiry

Attorney General influencing the investigation authority

Professional relationship between Attorney General and the respondent

Effect

Inquiry into the matter by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) constituted by the Chairman, NAB

Attorney General writing a letter to NAB authorities in furtherance of the directions of the Supreme Court in relation to the matter

Petitioner alleged that contents of said letter showed that Attorney General had exerted illegal and unwarranted influence over NAB, and that he had acted in a partisan manner and influenced NAB to favour the respondent

Validity

Attorney General had not disclosed to the Supreme Court his association or professional relationship with the respondent

Attorney General would not have been tasked with any responsibility in the present matter if he had made disclosure to the Supreme Court as to his professional association with the respondent

Attorney General had been directed by the Supreme Court to "set the machinery of the State in motion" in relation to the inquiry into the present matter but it was evident from the contents of his letter addressed to the Chairman, NAB that the Attorney General went well beyond setting the machinery of the State in motion and adopted a position and used words in his letter which should have been objectionable to a truly independent investigator

Word "expectation" used in the said letter, on the part of the Attorney General appeared to have influenced the Chairman, NAB in the performance of his duties which he was required by law to undertake without outside influence

Pursuant to the Attorney General's letter the Chairman, NAB obediently followed the Attorney General's instruction as if it were an obligatory and binding command coming from his superior, thus giving rise to the perception that NAB's independence appeared to have been compromised

Record provided prima facie evidence that NAB might have wilted under the outside influence of the Attorney General and might, therefore, not be in a position to conduct an impartial inquiry in the matter

Supreme Court entrusted the inquiry into the matter to a one man inquiry Commission with the direction that the entire record available with NAB which related to the present matter should be handed over to the Commission

Petition was disposed of accordingly.

2012 PLD 903 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 187Issue and execution of processes of Supreme CourtTransfer of inquiry

Alleged deal between respondent (businessman) and petitioner (son of serving Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) attempting to influence the judicial process

Inquiry into the matter by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) constituted by the Chairman, NAB

Petitioner alleging partiality and bias of the Attorney General, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and that of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT)

Supreme Court transferring inquiry into the matter to a one man inquiry Commission

Powers of said Commission as provided by the Supreme Court expounded.

2012 PLD 903 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 187National Accountability Ordinance (XIII of 1999), S.19Issue and execution of processes of Supreme CourtTransfer of inquiryPower of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to call for information from a personDuties of National Accountability Bureau (NAB)Scope

Alleged business deal between respondent (businessman) and petitioner (son of serving Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) attempting to influence the judicial process

Inquiry into the matter by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) constituted by the Chairman, NAB

Petitioner alleging partiality and bias of the Attorney General, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and that of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT)

Supreme Court concluded that inquiry by NAB in the matter would not be free from perception of partiality or bias or lack of competence and consequently transferred the same to a one man inquiry Commission

Reasons/directions given by the Supreme Court to the said Commission detailed.

2012 PLD 903 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 187National Accountability Ordinance (XIII of 1999), S.19Issue and execution of processes of Supreme CourtTransfer of inquiryAppearanceRegistrar of the Supreme Court before an investigation teamScopePower of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to call for information from a personDuties of National Accountability Bureau (NAB)Scope

Alleged business deal between respondent (businessman) and petitioner (son of serving Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) attempting to influence the judicial process

Inquiry into the matter by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) constituted by the Chairman, NAB

NAB authorities asking Registrar of the Supreme Court to appear before the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) and provide all original documentary and other evidence without informing him of the nature of such evidence

Validity

NAB authorities had addressed two letters to the Registrar of the Supreme Court in his official capacity, asking him to bring "all original documentary and other evidence to the "NAB Headquarter" in connection with the inquiry, but no information or particulars were given as to the nature of the documentary and other evidence or the facts and circumstances of the case

Before summoning a person to attend, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was duty bound to identify and particularize the information sought from any witness etc. and to state the nexus between such information and the subject of the inquiry being conducted by NAB

Said letters showed imperious and pernicious "thana" (police station) mentality, which NAB persisted with obdurately, and it raised serious questions, prima facie, as to the fairness, competence and professionalism of the members of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT)

Fact that Prosecutor General, NAB, took offence to the response given by the Registrar of the Supreme Court, to the said letters, based on his justified assumption that he was being summoned in his official capacity, further created the perception that it might not be possible for NAB to conduct its investigation in a dispassionate and objective manner

Supreme Court entrusted the inquiry into the matter to a one man inquiry Commission with the direction that the entire record available with NAB which related to the present matter should be handed over to the Commission

Petition was disposed of accordingly.