Law:

Section:

The brief facts out of which the present, writ petition arises are that the petitioner was appointed as Secondary School Teacher by the respondents on 1-5-1963 and thereafter, petitioner was promoted as District Education Officer gradually in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the respondents. Petitioner was retired from service by the respondents vide Notification dated 18-5-1999 with effect from 11-12-1998. The petitioner was posted as Deputy District Education Officer Lahore Cantt., by the competent Authority in the years 1987 and audit objection was drafted by the Audit. Officer regarding illegal/fraudulent drawal of salary on the basis of bogus appointment of PTC Teachers in Tehsil Lahore Cantt. consequently causing loss to the respondents approximately Rs.15,18,360. The respondents constituted a Committee in view of the audit objection consisting of Director Public Instructions (Schools) Punjab Lahore and two others namely Zahoor Ahmad Khan, A.E.O.(M) Lahore Cantt. and Muhammad Bashir Kathana A.E.O.(M) Lahore Cantt. The authorised officer declared that the charges had not been proved against the petitioner and two others who recommended exoneration of the charges levelled against them. The Competent. Authority/Secretary Education exonerated all the three officers including the petitioner vide order, dated 16-2-1994. Thereafter, respondents again proceeded against the petitioner on the same allegations and petitioner was suspended by the competent authority by the following order:--   26-11-1997,30-12-1997  and  16-2-1998.   The criminal case was also registered against the petitioner and others vide F.I.R. No.23 of 1998 on 19-3-1998 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 109 and 218 , P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 at Directorate of Anti-Corruption Establishment Punjab on the complaint of Mr. Manzoor Ahmad, Deputy Director (EE) Lahore Division Lahore.   The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner by the Anti-Corruption Department without preliminary inquiry. He further submits that complainant was not in possession of relevant…