| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 2401 2015 SLD 2401 2015 PCRLJ 1207 |
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 11947 of 2013, decided on 2nd April, 2014.
MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J
Ch. Muhammad Afzal Jatt for Petitioner. Muhammad Javed Saeed Pirzada, AAG with Naseer Ahmad Khan, Regional Director Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan for
Respondents
W.P. No. 11947 of 2013, decided on 2nd April, 2014.
MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J
Ch. Muhammad Afzal Jatt for Petitioner. Muhammad Javed Saeed Pirzada, AAG with Naseer Ahmad Khan, Regional Director Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan for
Respondents
Mst. RIFFAT PARVEEN
VS
REGIONAL DIRECTOR ANTICORRUPTION ESTABLISHMENT MULTAN REGION, MULTAN and 7 others
Law:
Section:
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)--- ----S. 5-A---West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, R.2(E)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Securing employment on the basis of bogus and fraudulent documents---Complainant, who was first cousin of ex-husband of the petitioner, in his application filed before Executive District Officer and complained that the petitioner had secured the employment on the basis of bogus and fraudulent documents---Three successive inquiries were held against the petitioner, but she was exonerated in said enquiries and was given a clean chit---Despite such exoneration, a fresh notice was sent to the petitioner to appear before the Anti-Corruption Establishment---Patience of the petitioner wore thin---Lady was fed-up with such an administration of justice as she was being singled out and harassed for such a treatment by the so-called law enforces---Petitioner approached High Court to seek a direction to authorities to restrain from harassing her in the name of successive inquiries---Helpless lady had been made the target of successive inquiries by Anti-Corruption Establishment in the name of unearthing forgery, on the basis of which she was alleged to have succeeded in securing the employment in the department concerned---Under R.2(E) of the Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, Competent Authority could accord permission to hold an inquiry or to order registration of a criminal case, or drop the case, but under said Rule, Competent Authority did not have unlimited, unbridled and untrammeled authority to go on ordering the holding of enquiry after enquiry against a person, until the victim either submitted to the demands of the complainant, or to those of Anti-Corruption Establishment or yielded to the unbearable pressure---Regional Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment considered himself to be a law into himself---Witch-hunting, and that too of a poor, helpless lady health worker was too disgusting---Authority was restrained from harassing the petitioner in the name of carrying out inquiries against her, when in three successive inquiries allegations levelled against the petitioner…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492