PESHAWAR, April 10: The Peshawar High Court on Wednesday asked the provincial government to clarify whether the public accounts committee has the powers to penalize a government servant.

A two-member bench of the high court comprising Justice Khalida Rachied and Justice Abdur Rauf Lughmani took up for hearing 17 writ petitions challenging the authority of NWFP Public Accounts Committee of imposing penalties on some government servants.

The bench would continue hearing of petitions on the same point of law on Thursday. The bench has directed the deputy advocate general, Tariq Jawed, to prepare the case on the point whether the PAC was only a recommendatory body or it could also impose penalty on civil servants.

A two-member bench had heard arguments in about two dozen writ petitions and reserved its judgment on Oct 25, 2000, but the verdict could not be delivered despite passage of more than a year. Finally, the high court ordered re-hearing of these petitions.

Advocates Qazi Mohammad Anwer, Abdul Lateef Afridi, Mian Fasihul Mulk and Riaz Ahmad Khan appeared for the petitioners, whereas Tariq Jawed represented the provincial government and the PAC.

Mr Anwer argued that the PAC had no legal authority to penalize a civil servant. He contended that the PAC overstepped its jurisdiction in issuing directives against the petitioners. He argued that the committee took up for discussion Auditor General Reports for the year 1994-95 and instead of putting forward its recommendations it issued directives for recovery of different amounts from the petitioners.

Mian Fasihul Mulk argued that PAC was not an executive body and it could only draw attention of concerned department towards an irregularity. He stated that in this case his client, Arbab Shah Afridi, was exonerated by the concerned secretary after an initial inquiry.

He added that the chairman and members of the PAC were informed by the concerned department that the petitioner was not at fault, but despite that the committee ordered recovery of an amount from petitioner with the directives that criminal case should be registered against him if he failed to deposit the amount within 15 days.

Riaz Khan, appearing for three petitioners, stated that after the PAC issued directives about the petitioners they were served notices by the department. The court asked whether his petitions were not different from the other cases as in his case they were served show cause notices only. He argued that the notice was issued on directives of the committee, therefore they had challenged the said findings of the committee.

The DAG, Tariq Jawed, stated that under Article 171 of the Constitution the reports of auditor general pertaining to accounts of a province should be submitted before the provincial assembly. He added that the PAC was established under Rules of Business of the assembly and the PAC was competent body to make decisions on the reports of auditor general.

Lateef Afridi proposed that if the government agreed that the directives of the PAC should only be considered by the concerned departments as recommendations then these petitions could be disposed of accordingly.

The bench inquired from him under what authority the PAC could penalize a civil servant. He argued that the concerned departments only follow the recommendations of the committee. The bench observed that in most of the petitions the PAC had issued directives and not recommendations.