PLJ 2018 Quetta 139 (DB)
Present : NAZEER AHMED LANGOVE AND MUHAMMAD EJAZ SWATI , JJ.
SAJJID AHMED and others --Petitioners
versus
NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Director General and others --
Respondents
C.P. Nos. 13 & 69 of 2017, C.P. Nos. 1203, 1210, 1212, 1213 & 1214 of 2016, decided on
29.3.2017.
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--
----Art. 199--National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999-- Constitutional Petition during
course of inquiry by NAB --Alleg ation of --Bogus Appointment in Education Department --
Reference were filed against petitioners --Declared innocent --Jurisdiction of High Court for grant
of bail through constitutional petition--Allegation against Abdul Karim Khiazai is that he in
connivance with Petitioners Nizam- ud-din and Ghufran Ahmed appointed 7 bogus teachers in
District Quetta and petitioners in violation of procedure, activated salaries of alleged bogus
teachers --Petitioner Abdul Karim has taken plea that he had been retired in March, 2011 and
during period of alleged appointment he was out of country --Question related to petitioner
Ghufran Ahmed as to whether he at relevant time being Ex -Deputy District Officer Education
(Male) Zarghoon Town Quetta had DDOs Power to initiate salaries o f impugned bogus teachers
or as to whether official/officer of office of Accountant General Balochistan, Quetta acted in
violation of any law, rule or regulation and bringing their case under NAB Ordinance are
exceptional circumstances which are yet to be decided by trail Court --References in question had
already been submitted before trial Court and petitioners are facing their trial --This Court, in
C.P. Nos. 03, 17, 18 and 21 of 2016 related to reference No. 11 on almost same allegations
confirmed bail be fore arrest of above petitioners vide judgment dated 30.12.21016, therefore, a
case for confirmation of bail before arrest and post arrest is made out in favour of petitioners --
Bail was allowed. [Pp. 142 & 143] A
The State vs. Haji Kabeer Khan PLD 2005 SC 364, ref .
Mr. Sohail Ahmed Rajput, Advocate for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 13 of 2017).
M/s. Ch. Mumtaz Yousaf, DPG and Riaz Akhtar Tareen, Special Prosecutor, NAB for
Respondents (in C.P. No. 13 of 2017).
Syed Iqbal Shah, Advocate for Petitioner (in C.P. N o. 69 of 2017).
M/s. Ch. Mumtaz Yousaf, DPG and Riaz Akhtar Tareen, Special Prosecutor, NAB for
Respondent (in C.P. No. 69 of 2017).
Miss Sarwat Hina, Advocate for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 1203 of 2016).
M/s. Ch. Mumtaz Yousaf, DPG and Riaz Akhtar Tareen, Special Prosecutor, NAB for
Respondent (in C.P. No. 1203 of 2016).
Mr. Sohail Ahmed Rajput, Advocate for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 1210 of 2016).
M/s. Ch. Mumtaz Yousaf, DPG and Riaz Akhtar Tareen, Special Prosecutor, NAB for
Respondent (in C.P. No. 1210 of 2016).
Petitioner in person (in C.P. No. 1212 of 2016).
M/s. Ch. Mumtaz Yousaf, DPG and Riaz Akhtar Tareen, Special Prosecutor, NAB for Respondents (in C.P. No. 1212 of 2016).
Petitioner in person (in C.P. No. 1213 of 2016).
M/s. Ch. Mumtaz Yousaf, DPG and Riaz Akhtar Tareen, Special Prosecutor, NAB for
Respondents (in C.P. No. 1213 of 2016).
Mr. Kamran Murtaza, Advocate for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 1214 of 2016).
M/s. Ch. Mumtaz Yousaf, DPG and Riaz Akhtar Tareen, Special Prosecutor, NAB for
Respondents (in C.P. No. 1214 of 2016).
Date of hearing: 6.3.2017.
O
RDER
Nazeer Ahmed Langove J.--Through this common order, we shall dispose of the Constitution
Petition No. 13, 69 of 2017 and 1203, 1210, 1212, 1213 and 1214 of 2016 having common
question of facts and law.
2. The facts of the above constitutional petitions are that during the course of inquiry by the
NAB Authority Balochistan related to record of Education Department and office of Accountant General of Baloch istan revealed that 125x mismatch names of teachers were forwarded to
concerned officers of Education Department (Schools) in Quetta for provision of their appointment orders. On verification it was found that out of 125x teachers 104 appointments were “Bo gus” , on completion of investigation besides Reference No. 11 instant References 9 &
10 of 2016 were also filed against the petitioners on the ground that after making investigation against each set of accused which revealed the following 7x teachers were appointed/adjusted by
petitioner Abdul Karim Khiazai (C.P No. 1213/2016) in connivance with Nizam -ud-Din (C.P.
No. 1212/2016) and Ghufran Ahmed (C.P. No. 1214/2016).
i. Sajjad Ahmed S/o Shah Dost, JVT
ii. Murad Baksh S/o Hazoor Baksh, JVT
iii. Mangal Khan S/o Humbo Khan, JVT
iv. Kabil Khan S/o Nokaf Khan, JVT
v. Ghulam Sarwar S/o Meer Muhammad, JVT
vi. Muhammad Ehtisham S/o Muhammad Asad, JET
vii. Illahi Baksh S/o Nazar Ali, JVT
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that involvement of the petitioners in the
instant Reference is based on mala fide and ulterior motives as they had already been
participated in the inquiry, investigation and on the same allegation almost petitioners’ bail before arrest was confirmed by this Court and in C.P. No. 03/2016 & others vide Judgment dated
30.12.2016. Petitioner Abdul Karim (C.P. No. 1213/2016) contended that on the same allegation after inquiry and investigation Reference No. 10 of 2015 was filed against officers of the Education Department but he was f ound innocent. He further submitted that he had been retired
in March, 2011 and despite his innocence in the previous two References he was again called to face the same allegation in the instant Reference which according to him smacks mala fide on the
part of the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner Ghufran Ahmed (C.P. No.
1214/2016) contended that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he initiated the salaries of bogus teachers on the basis of fake appointment orders, whereas pe titioner Ghufran at
the relevant time was holding the post of Ex -Deputy District Officer Education (Male), Zarghoon
Town Quetta had neither drawing and disbursement (DDO’s) powers nor any reference of such powers has been given in the impugned Reference. T he learned counsel for the petitioner Abbas
Raza, Ahsan Ullah and Syed Wajahat Hussain contended that salaries of teachers were activated by the officials of Accounts Officers, Office of Accountant General Balochistan as per rules and regulation and in the previous Reference i.e. Reference No. 11 on the same allegation their pre -
arrest bail have been confirmed in C.P. Nos. 17 & 18 of 2016 respectively, therefore, in the instant Reference their involvement reflect mala fide . The petitioners had extended full
cooperation and provided all the relevant documents during inquiry and investigation, therefore, they are entitled for confirmation of their bail before arrest and petitioners (C.P. Nos. 13 and 69 of 2017) are entitled for grant of post arrest bail.
On th e other learned DPG and Special Prosecutor, NAB strenuously opposed the Constitutional
petitions by arguing that the grant of pre -arrest bail is barred under NAB Ordinance 1997. It was
maintained that the petitioners with connivance of each other initially succeeded in appointing
bogus teachers and thereafter, managed to activate their salary in utter violation and disregard of procedures, primary duties as per job description, rules and regulations. In this regard inquiry was conducted by the NAB authority during course whereof it revealed that the petitioners by
misusing their authority/office have caused a loss of Rs. 4,385,073 (Rupees Forty Three Lacs Eighty Five Thousand and Seventy Three Only) as such they exposed themselves to be arrested and tried.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and tentatively perused the record. As
regards the jurisdiction of the High Court regarding grant of pre -arrest bail in National
Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 it has been held in the case titled as The State Vs. Haji Kabeer Khan (PLD 2005 SC 364)
“The High Court would exercise its powers in rare & exceptional circumstance for valid reasons. In Khan Asfand Yar Wali vs. Federation of Pakistan Through Cabinet Division (PLD 2001 SC 607) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has devised a strategy for granting bail to such accused persons through Constitutional Jurisdiction of the High Court, Provided their cases are arguable for the purpose of grant of bail”.
In the instant case the allegation against Abdul Karim Khiazai is that he in connivance with Petitioners Nizam- ud-din and Ghufran Ahmed appointed 7 bogus teachers in District Quetta and
petitioners Abbas Raza, Ehsan Ullah and Syed Wajahat Hussain in violation of procedure, activated salaries of all eged bogus teachers. The petitioner Abdul Karim has taken plea that he
had been retired in March, 2011 and during the period of alleged appointment he was out of country.
The question related to petitioner Ghufran Ahmed as to whether he at the relevant time being Ex -
Deputy District Officer Education (Male) Zarghoon Town Quetta had DDOs Power to initiate
the salaries of impugned bogus teachers or as to whether official/officer of office of Accountant General Balochi stan, Quetta acted in violation of any law, rule or regulation and bringing their
case under NAB Ordinance are the exceptional circumstances which are yet to be decided by the trial Court. The References in question had already been submitted before the tr ial Court and
petitioners are facing their trial. This Court, in C.P. Nos. 03, 17, 18 and 21 of 2016 related to reference No. 11 on almost same allegations confirmed bail before arrest of the above referred petitioners vide judgment dated 30.12.21016, ther efore, a case for confirmation of bail before
arrest and post arrest is made out in favour of the petitioners.
In view of the above vide short orders dated 06.03.2017, Constitution Petitions Nos. 13, 69 of
2017 and 1203, 1210, 1212, 1213 and 1214 of 2016 w ere allowed and petitioners’ pre- arrest bail
were confirmed and petitioners in Constitution Petition Nos. 13 and 69 of 2017 were granted post arrest bail. These are the reasons of short orders of even date i.e. 06.03.2017.
(M.M.R.) Petitions allowedThis judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.