High court set aside the initiation of fresh inquiry proceedings against the petitioner as it violated the principle of double jeopardy.
دوبارہ تفتیش شروع کرنا ڈبل جیورڈی کے اصول کے خلاف
پس منظر اور مقدمے کی نوعیت
لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے ملتان بینچ کے سامنے درخواست گزار محمد اکرم سہیل نے پنجاب حکومت کے خلاف درخواست دائر کی، جس میں محکمہ جنگلات کی جانب سے ان کے خلاف دوبارہ انکوائری شروع کرنے کے فیصلے کو چیلنج کیا گیا۔ مقدمہ پنجاب ایمپلائز ایفیشینسی، ڈسپلن اینڈ اکاؤنٹیبلیٹی ایکٹ، 2006 کے تحت شروع ہونے والی انکوائری کے حوالے سے تھا، جس میں درخواست گزار پر ناکامی اور بدانتظامی کے الزامات تھے۔
عدالت کے فیصلے کے اہم نکات
عدالت نے فیصلہ دیا کہ جب کسی شخص کے خلاف تادیبی کارروائی ختم ہو چکی ہو اور اسے بری کر دیا گیا ہو، تو اسی الزام پر دوبارہ تفتیش یا انکوائری شروع کرنا قانونی طور پر جائز نہیں۔ اس فیصلے نے ڈبل جیورڈی (Double Jeopardy) کے اصول کو مضبوطی سے تسلیم کیا، جو شہریوں کو ایک ہی جرم کے لیے دو بار سزا یا کارروائی سے بچاتا ہے۔
تفصیل اور مقدمے کی کہانی
درخواست گزار کے خلاف 05.01.2019 کو شو کاز نوٹس جاری کیا گیا تھا اور مکمل کارروائی کے بعد 08.05.2019 کو اسے بری کر دیا گیا۔ بعد ازاں، محکمہ جنگلات نے نئے انکوائری اقدامات شروع کیے، حالانکہ پچھلی انکوائری میں وہ مکمل طور پر بری ہو چکے تھے۔ عدالت نے کہا کہ پچھلی کارروائی کے بعد کوئی نئی انکوائری شروع کرنا عدالتی حدود سے باہر ہے اور قانون کی خلاف ورزی ہے۔
عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ اہلکاروں کو اپنی ذمہ داریوں کو ایمانداری اور قانون کے مطابق انجام دینا چاہیے۔ کسی بھی عوامی افسر کو قانونی حدود سے تجاوز کرتے ہوئے ایک ہی معاملے میں دوبارہ کارروائی کرنے کا اختیار نہیں ہے۔
عدالتی حکم اور اس کا اثر
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے درخواست منظور کرتے ہوئے 18.01.2021 کے نوٹیفائیڈ آرڈر کو منسوخ کر دیا، جس میں درخواست گزار کے خلاف دوبارہ انکوائری شروع کرنے کی ہدایت دی گئی تھی۔ عدالت نے یہ بھی واضح کیا کہ کوئی بھی تادیبی کارروائی اسی بنیاد پر کی جا سکتی ہے، جس پر پچھلی انکوائری میں بری ہونے کے بعد کوئی نیا الزام موجود ہو۔
ڈبل جیورڈی کے اصول سے متعلق دیگر اہم فیصلے
Javed Maqbool Bhatti v. Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department [1998 PLC (C.S.) 208] – ایک ہی الزام پر متعدد تادیبی کارروائیوں سے تحفظ۔
Mrs. Khalida Amjad v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary of Education, Lahore and another [2009 PLC (C.S.) 1] – بری ہونے کے بعد دوبارہ تادیبی کارروائی کی قانونی حیثیت۔
Muhammad Tariq Saeed and 2 others v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary Forest, Wildlife and Fisheries Department and 2 others [2011 PLC (C.S.) 884] – ڈبل جیورڈی کے اصول کی وضاحت اور دوبارہ کارروائی کی حدود۔
Rana Tahir Hassan Khan v. Capital Development Authority and others (2022 CLC 454) – نئے تادیبی اقدامات کی قانونی حیثیت اور حدود۔
نتیجہ
یہ فیصلہ عوامی افسران کے لیے واضح پیغام ہے کہ وہ اپنی ذمہ داریاں ایمانداری اور قانون کے مطابق انجام دیں۔ ایک شخص کے خلاف پہلے سے ختم شدہ کارروائی کے بعد دوبارہ انکوائری یا تادیبی کارروائی شروع کرنا غیر قانونی اور اصولی طور پر درست نہیں۔ عدالت نے ڈبل جیورڈی کے اصول کو مضبوطی سے نافذ کرتے ہوئے شہریوں کے حقوق کی حفاظت کو یقینی بنایا۔
Summary
The main point ordered by the court is to set aside the initiation of fresh inquiry proceedings against the petitioner as it violated the principle of double jeopardy.
The main point decided in the judgment is that once disciplinary proceedings against an individual have been dropped and they have been exonerated, there is no legal basis to initiate fresh proceedings against them on the same charges. This decision upholds the principle of double jeopardy, which protects individuals from being prosecuted or punished twice for the same offense.
The judgment you provided concerns a case where the petitioner challenged the initiation of inquiry proceedings against them under the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The petitioner argued that since they had already been exonerated in a previous inquiry, initiating new proceedings against them violated the principle of double jeopardy. The court agreed with the petitioner, stating that once disciplinary proceedings were dropped, there was no basis to initiate fresh proceedings on the same charges. The judgment emphasized the duty of public functionaries to act in good faith and within the bounds of the law. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition and set aside the order to initiate inquiry proceedings against the petitioner.
Must read Judgement
JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
W. P. No.1532 of 2021
Muhammad Akram Sohail
Versus
Govt. of the Punjab through Secretary Forest Department, Punjab,
Lahore & others
J U D G M E N T
Date of hearing: 23.04.2024.
Petitioner by:
Rao Muhammad Adnan Jamshaid Khan,
Advocate.
Respondents by: Syed Wajid Hussain Rizvi, Assisaatant
Advocate General.
MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.-
Through instant petition, petitioner has assailed vires of order
dated 18.01.2021, passed by respondent No. 2 / Divisional
Forest Officer, Layyah Forest Division, Layyah, whereby
inquiry proceedings were initiated against petitioner under
Section 3 of the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and
Accountability Act, 2006 (“PEEDA, 2006”) on the charges of
inefficiency and misconduct, with the allegation that during
petitioner’s posting as Forest Guard, a damage of 466 trees
worth Rs.40,26,500/- was sustained in his beat / block i.e. Dad
Block.
2.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was
issued a show cause notice and after completing all the codal
formalities, he was exonerated vide order dated 08.05.2019,
therefore, he could not have been proceeded again against same
charges. He adds that under the provisions of PEEDA, 2006,
respondent No.2 has no power to review his earlier order,
especially when order dated 08.05.2019 had attained finality.
He argues that under Article 13 of the Constitution of the
W. P. No.1532 of 2021
2
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, no one can be punished
twice with the same allegation and said provision protects the
citizens from double jeopardy. He contends that in fact inquiry
was initiated only against respondents No.7 to 9, and petitioner
was wrongly held responsible for shortage of the trees, thus, the
Inquiry Officer has travelled beyond his jurisdiction.
3.
When confronted, learned Law Officer could not deny
the above submission that in presence of order dated 08.05.2019
withdrawing show cause notice issued against petitioner, de
novo inquiry proceedings could not have been initiated against
him, however submits that instant writ petition is not
maintainable against order of initiation of inquiry proceedings.
4.
Heard. Available record perused.
5.
Record shows that a show cause notice dated 05.01.2019
was issued against petitioner while he was holding additional
charge of Dad Block, a shortage of 528 trees was observed for
which the government sustained a heavy loss, thus an enquiry
was initiated in the matter. Petitioner tendered reply to the show
cause notice and the Range Forest Officer submitted report in
petitioner’s favour by observing that balance shortage of 676
trees from Hayat Disty, 150 trees from 3/R Minor Hayat and 46
trees from Lal Minor existed and he proposed initiation of
disciplinary action against one Azhar Abbas, Forest Guard, the
then Incharge of Hayat Tail Beat. In this backdrop, show cause
notice dated 05.01.2019, issued against petitioner, was
withdrawn vide order dated 08.05.2019, passed by respondent
No.2. Subsequently, inquiry proceedings were initiated against
Adnan Yousaf, Forester, Muhammad Amanullah, Forest Guard
and Azhar Abbas, Forest Guard, however they were also
exonerated vide order dated 18.01.2021, passed by respondent
No.2, again petitioner was held responsible and impugned show
cause notice was issued against him.
6.
The matter was one and the same and the competent
authority was also the same. A detailed inquiry ended in
W. P. No.1532 of 2021
3
petitioner’s support and upon receipt of inquiry report, three
options or courses of action were available with the competent
authority, who could either exonerate petitioner or punish him
or order a de novo inquiry, if it was satisfied that inquiry
proceedings were not conducted lawfully or on merits. In this
case, the competent authority exonerated petitioner, thus it
could not initiate fresh or de novo inquiry proceedings against
him. Since there is no provision in the relevant law which
empowered respondent No. 2 to review his own previous
decision to withdraw the disciplinary proceedings initiated
against petitioner, I am of the view that the impugned order to
re-initiate inquiry proceedings against petitioner is without
lawful authority. The competent authority cannot reopen the
matter against the petitioner as it is settled law that one cannot
be vexed twice for the same cause. Reliance in this regard can
be placed upon Javed Maqbool Bhatti v. Secretary, Irrigation
and Power Department [1998 PLC (C.S.) 208], Mrs. Khalida
Amjad v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary of
Education, Lahore and another [2009 PLC (C.S.) 1],
Muhammad Tariq Saeed and 2 others v. Government of the
Punjab through Secretary Forest, Wildlife and Fisheries
Department and 2 others [2011 PLC (C.S.) 884] and Rana
Tahir Hassan Khan v. Capital Development Authority and
others (2022 CLC 454).
7.
Needless to observe here that once disciplinary
proceedings were dropped by the respondent-authority, there
was no occasion to again proceed against petitioner for same
charges. Such act of authorities is against the principles of
natural justice as initiating fresh proceedings did not mean that
civil servant should be proceeded again on the same charges,
which were not found correct in earlier proceedings. Inquiry can
only be conducted if there are charges other than the earlier
charges on which show cause notice / disciplinary proceedings
was withdrawn / dropped. Reliance is placed upon
W. P. No.1532 of 2021
4
Administrator/Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority
Karachi v. Ghulam Mustafa Khan and another (2011 SCMR
480).
8.
So far as argument of learned Law Officer that instant
petition is not maintainable against initiation of inquiry
proceedings is concerned, suffice it to say that since
petitioner has undergone the process of earlier inquiry and
subsequent inquiry proceedings are illegal and unlawful
under well-settled principles of law, thus, the same can be
questioned before this Court, especially when appeal before
the Service Tribunal lies only against final order. Therefore,
this objection, being misconceived, is repelled. Reference can
be made to Hasanat Gul and 8 others v. The Chief Minister,
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Principal Secretary [2018 P L C
(C.S.) Note 48]
9.
Needless to observe here that public functionaries owe a
fiduciary duty to act in good faith and discharge their duties
with honesty and in accordance with law. Public functionaries
are expected to perform their duties fairly, justly and well
within the prescribed limits of the law of the land. Omissions
and actions of public functionary while in authority, shall not be
limited to himself but sure to prejudice rights and obligations of
others, if he fails to do justice with the assigned duties.
10. In view of the above discussion, instant petition is
allowed. Consequently, impugned order dated 18.01.2021,
passed by respondent No. 2 is set aside being illegal and
without lawful authority to the extent of petitioner.
(Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi)
Judge
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
Here are some more case laws related to the principle of double jeopardy and the initiation of fresh disciplinary proceedings after exoneration:
1. *Javed Maqbool Bhatti v. Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department* [1998 PLC (C.S.) 208] - This case discusses the principle of double jeopardy and how it protects individuals from being subjected to multiple disciplinary proceedings for the same offense.
2. *Mrs. Khalida Amjad v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary of Education, Lahore and another* [2009 PLC (C.S.) 1] - In this case, the court considered the legality of initiating fresh disciplinary proceedings against an individual after they had been exonerated in a previous inquiry.
3. *Muhammad Tariq Saeed and 2 others v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary Forest, Wildlife and Fisheries Department and 2 others* [2011 PLC (C.S.) 884] - This case provides further clarification on the principle of double jeopardy and the limitations on initiating new disciplinary proceedings against an individual after they have been cleared of previous charges.
4. *Rana Tahir Hassan Khan v. Capital Development Authority and others* (2022 CLC 454) - This case discusses the issue of re-initiating disciplinary proceedings against an individual and emphasizes the need for such actions to be lawful and in accordance with established legal principles.
These cases collectively establish the legal precedent regarding the protection against double jeopardy and the limitations on initiating fresh disciplinary proceedings after exoneration.
Tags
Inquiry service