MUHAMMAD MURTAZA Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EX OFFICIO) ANTI-CORRUPTION ESTABLISHMENT, BAHAWALPUR

ORDER

Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the enquiry proceedings being conducted by Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalpur on a complaint filed by Ghulam Rasool.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the above‑noted petition are that on an application moved by one Ghulam Rasool, levelling allegations of corruption against the petitioners (who are officials in the Health Department) an enquiry was initiated by Deputy Medical, Superintendent, BV Hospital, Bahawalpur who found that the allegations were false. The complainant moved yet another application before the Deputy Commissioner, who called a report from the M.S. BV, Hospital who reported that an enquiry had already been conducted and that no further action was warranted in law. On yet another application moved by the same complainant, Deputy Commissioner, directed the Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalpur to hold the necessary enquiry.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the enquiry proceedings on the grounds that the matter had already been enquired into and initiation of second enquiry qua the same facts amounts to double jeopardy; that the Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalpur is not competent to enquire into the matter in question as the petitioners are serving in the Health Department and only M.S., BV Hospital who is the Appointing Authority could be the Authorised Officer or any person nominated by him and that there is no provision in law to authorise the Assistant Commissioner to proceed with the enquiry in question.

4. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General who has entered appearance on Court call has raised a preliminary objection that petitioners are civil servants and they cannot invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court in view of Article 212 of the Constitution.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

6. Petitioners, are admittedly civil servants and therefore amenable to the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Even otherwise, the petition is premature petitioners may, if so advised, raise all the legal objections qua legality of the enquiry in question before the Enquiry Officer. If such objections are raised, the Enquiry Officer shall decide those objections in the first instance and then proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law. With this observation, the petition stands disposed of.

H.B.T./M‑168/L Petition disposed of.