ACE, Punjab, is regulated under The West Punjab Anti-Corruption Ordinance, 1961 & derived Rules of 2014. Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE), Punjab is an attached Department of Services and General Administration Department (S&GAD), Government of Punjab and is answerable to the office of ACS. Thus, it is not an independent body but rather working under the control of bureaucracy. Further, it primarily works against the corruption of public servants of Punjab. However, ironically, it involves politicians & others when there is also a public servant involved. Furthermore, according to rules, Anti-Corruption Establishment Punjab performs certain operations according to the requirements of the matter and as provided for by Anti-Corruption laws and rules.
- Complaint Handling
- Enquiry
- Case Registration
- Trap Raids
The posts of ACE are reserved by S&GAD. Therefore, officers of PMS can legally be appointed. Then, PAS officers are also appointed to be at the disposal of S&GAD. Then, there are internal ACE appointments also. However, deputation officers, including those from Police, are also posted, but these postings are against the judgement of the Supreme Court. ACE is a special law. Thus, it is treated according to ACE rules. The Registration of the case is done after probe and enquiry. Judicial action is done when the investigation is complete and there is substantive evidence. The CRPC is the procedure. Trap cases are the direct mode of ROC. However, lately, source reports have been generated for ROC and arrests of the accused. Then, resource reports are against the spirit of ACE rules and are used for political and other purposes. ACE should primarily mean to check the corruption of public servants of Punjab. However, it has developed a new culture lately that it is catching politicians by nominating a public official also. It is primarily an executive office working under the Punjab Government. Thus, it is used as a political tool. ACE Punjab must be independent of the Executive and should work as an independent entity. Also, it should recruit its own human resources. Reserving its seats for bureaucracy is a conflict of interest. Therefore, it only catches lower staff, and higher bureaucracy remains free.
ACE, Punjab, is also suffering from a capacity crisis. The white-collar investigation is not done as most of the officers are generalists belonging to PMS/PAS or Police. Internal HR is also not trained to conduct enquiries or investigations of white-collar crimes. Therefore, the majority of the cases are dropped at various stages of court trials. ACE, Punjab needs reforms. It must begin with making it an independent body. Bureaucracy and the Punjab government should not control it as it arises a conflict of interest. It needs to recruit its own human resources with specialized skills. Spiralized ACE can only probe or investigate. There is a difference between criminality and procedure flaws. Therefore, ACE should take cognizance after auditing the transactions. It should take direct cognizance only in private money. Lastly, there is a dire need not to make ACE a political tool to victimize. Its primary purpose is to check the corruption of public servants working in the departments of the Punjab Government. It should also standardize its procedures and modules. It should adopt an approach of a vigilant watchdog, ensuring vivid accountability and absolute application of law enforcement on public servants. There is a need to make it Punjab’s premier anti-corruption agency that puts integrity and accountability first for good governance, development and progress of the province.
” Registration of case etc.– (1) If the facts so warrant, the Establishment may register a criminal case against the accused public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947) and such sections of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860) as are mentioned in the Schedule appended to the Ordinance.
(2) Subject to sub-rule (3), no criminal case shall be registered under sub-rule (1) unless approved in writing by the officer of the Establishment mentioned below against each category: (a) Public servants in BPS-1 to BPS16 Not below Deputy Director (b) Public servants in BPS-17 & BPS18 Not below a Director (c) Public servants in BPS-19 & above Director General.
(3) Subject to sub-rule (4), no case shall be registered against a District Coordination Officer of a District Government, a Commissioner of a Division, a Secretary to the Government, a Head of an Attached Department, and any other officer of BPS-20 and above without prior permission in writing of the Chief Minister but in case any of those officers are in BPS-19, such permission may be accorded by the Chief Secretary.
(4) No permission shall be required for the Registration of a case against a public servant caught as a result of a trap arranged by the Establishment under the supervision of a Magistrate in the act of committing an offence specified in the Schedule to the Ordinance but in that case, a report shall immediately be made to the Chief Secretary, the Administrative Secretary and the immediate supervisory officer of the public servant concerned if he is in BPS-16 and above and to the appointing authority and the immediate supervisory officer if the public servant is in BPS-15 and below.
(5) If the competent authority under sub-rule (2) decides not to register a case, it shall record the reasons thereof.
(6) On completion of an enquiry: (a) if the allegations are not substantiated, the enquiry shall be dropped under written orders of the authority mentioned in sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) of rule 6 and intimation to that effect shall be sent to the concerned public servant and his departmental authorities; and (b) if sufficient evidence is not available for Registration of a case but there is reasonable evidence on record for initiation of disciplinary action against the public servant, the authority mentioned in sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) of rule 6 shall refer the matter along with the complaint and complete record of enquiry and findings to the concerned departmental authority for disciplinary action under the law for the time being in force.
The abovementioned rules are the only legal cover for the Registration of cases. Therefore, Police can not file cases where public servants are involved in public transactions. ACE is a special law, and therefore, ACE should adopt its spirit in filing cases after going through necessary probe enquiry and investigation. There are rising complaints of human rights violations regarding the treatment of the accused. There should not be an abuse of authority by the ACE when treating different public officials. There is a need to transform the ACE Act and rules according to new challenges. Adoption of a functional ACE policy should be the priority. ACE should not be a typical investigative body but rather a reformatory body intending to reform the business of the Government to ensure transparency, accountability and growth.
