11/3/23, 8:21 AM 1998 P L C (C
1998 P L C (C. S.) 208
[Lahore High Court]
Before Mrs. Fakhar-un-Nisa Khokhar, J
JAVED MAQBOOL BHATTI
versus
SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT
Writ Petition No. 12206 of 1996, heard on 12th August, 1997.
Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975--
----Rr. 6 & 7-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional
petition---Departmental inquiry---Initially, six charges were levelled against civil
servant---Inquiry Officer exonerated civil servant of such charges-- Authorised
Officer did not agree with report of Inquiry Officer and appointed another Inquiry
Committee---Another charge was added without amending the charge-sheet---
Validity---Civil servant offered himself to face new charge provided Department
would not hold second inquiry on rest of allegations already inquired into by
Inquiry Officer---Constitutional petition was accepted to the extent that civil
servant would not face another trial on same allegations which stood concluded by
Inquiry Officer and which still had to be proceeded on by Authorised Officer in
view of provisions of R.7-A, Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1975-- Department could initiate departmental action on new charge and
could appoint fresh Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Officers already appointed subject to
right of association of civil servant and concluding the same within specified time.
Muhammad Yasin Bhatti for Petitioner.
Malik Muhammad Kabir, A.A.-G. with Ghulam Hassan Sial, Section Officer.
Irrigation Department and Qazi Anwar Ali, Superintending Engineer, Mechanical
for Respondent
Date of hearing: 12th August, 1997.
JUDGMENT
This may be considered as admitted case.
2. Brief facts of the instant case are that the petitioner was inducted as Sub-
Engineer in WAPDA and later on his services were transferred to the Irrigation and
Power Department. Petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer in Mughalpura
Irrigation Workshop (M.I.W.), Lahore when a complaint was lodged by one
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=1998L2016 1/4
11/3/23, 8:21 AM 1998 P L C (C
Zaigham Abbas against him to the Chief Minister's Inspection Team. On this
complaint a report was called from the Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore.
These allegations were looked in by a high powered committee who submitted a
report to the Chief Minister's Inspection Team on 23-4-1993. The C.M.I.T.
recommended departmental and other actions to be initiated against the petitioner.
Petitioner was charge sheeted on 1-11-1993. Khalid Ahmad Khan, Chief Engineer
was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Preliminary inquiry was conducted by Raja
Hassan Abbas, Deputy Secretary-General, Irrigation and Power Department who
submitted report on 1-4-1993, later on a regular inquiry was held on the same
allegations added with another allegation No. V and the petitioner stood the
inquiry. The inquiry report was concluded by the Inquiry Officer on 21-12-1993.
The Authorised Officer did not agree with the inquiry report and instead of dealing
with inquiry report within the provisions of Rule 7-A of the Punjab Civil Servants
(Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 recommended the de novo inquiry and
appointed Inquiry Officer, namely Muhammad Akhtar Raza who refused to act as
Inquiry Officer later on the inquiry was entrusted to Mr. Zaka Ullah Bhatti,
Superintending Engineer. who delayed the inquiry for a longer term and on the
very basis the inquiry was taken away from him and was entrusted to Mr.
Muhammad Jahangir Khan. Chief Engineer, Irrigation P & R Zone, Lahore. The
petitioner gave an application against the same Inquiry Officer and the inquiry was
entrusted to a committee consisting of Malik Ahmad Khan, Chief Engineer.
Sargodha and Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Chief Engineer, Multan. This second inquiry is
challenged through the instant writ petition by the petitioner on the premises that
this is directed in violation of Rules 6(2) and 7-A of the Punjab Civil Servants
Efficiency and Discipline Rules. 1975.
3. It is notable that without amending the charge-sheet another charge No.7 was
added which is re-produced below:-
"That you produced forged Certificates No.48/A/69 and No. 16/13/71 for
sections A and B Diploma of A.M. I.E. Pakistan, to the department, on the
basis of which you managed illegal promotions to the rank of Assistant
Executive Engineer and then to the rank of Executive Engineer. The
verifications from the Institute of Engineers Pakistan/Bangladesh have
revealed that Certificate No.48/A/69 of A.M.I.E. Section A was not issued
to Mr. Javed Maqbool Ahmad and Certificate No/16/B/71 of section B has
not been issued at all."
4. Rule 7-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Efficiency Rules, 1975 prescribes
procedure to be observed by the Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee. Rule 7-A as
re-produced below:-
"The Authorised Officer, on receipt of the report of the Inquiry Officer or
Inquiry Committee, shall determine whether the charge has been proved. If
it is proposed to impose a minor penalty he shall. after, affording the
accused an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed, pass
order accordingly. If it is proposed to impose a major penalty, he shall, after
affording the accused an opportunity to offer his explanation against his
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=1998L2016 2/4
11/3/23, 8:21 AM 1998 P L C (C
recommendations for imposition of major penalty, forward the case to the
authority alongwith the charge-sheet, a statement of allegations served on
the accused, explanation of the accused the finding of the Inquiry Officer or
the Inquiry Committee, as the case may be, and his own recommendations
regarding the penalty to be imposed. In case it is proposed to drop the
proceedings, the Authorised Officer shall submit the case with all relevant
material documents to the Authority for appropriate orders. "
It is also notable that the department has initiated criminal prosecution on the same
charges where the petitioner has taken a clear stand that he cannot be prosecuted as
he stands exonerated through departmental inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. He has
filed separate writ petition which is still pending in this Court and the proceedings
are stayed. Now without prejudice to the Writ Petition No.4383 of 1993 the
department is ready to hold an inquiry on the new charge as re-produced above to
the exclusion of the charges already inquired into by the Inquiry Officer as the
same is still within their jurisdiction to refer the same to the Authorised Officer to
take appropriate action in respect of inquiry report in view of the clear provisions
of Rule 7-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975.
Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts the stand taken by the department and
submits that petitioner is ready to face the new charge provided they will not hold
the second inquiry on the rest of the allegation already inquired into by the Inquiry
Officer namely Khalid Ahmad Khan, Chief Engineer.
5. Be that so, the instant writ petition stands partly accepted to the extent that the
petitioner shall not face another trial on the same allegations which stand already
concluded by the Inquiry Officer and which still has to be proceeded on by the
Authorised Officer in view of the provisions of Rule 7-A of the Punjab Civil
Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The department may initiate the
departmental action on the charge No.7 as re-produced above and may appoint
fresh Inquiry Officer or the Inquiry Officers already appointed by them subject to
the rights of association of the accused-petitioner and conclude the inquiry within a
month of receipt of this order. Writ petition stands decided in view of what have
been discussed above.
A.A./J-28/L Petition disposed of.
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=1998L2016 3/4
11/3/23, 8:21 AM 1998 P L C (C
https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=1998L2016 4/4
