Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Monday directed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chairman to present the option of immediate retirement to at least 48 officials in whose cases the Establishment Division had found inconsistencies at the time of their initial appointments.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice Amir Hani Muslim took up the suo moto case regarding illegal appointments in NAB for hearing and observed that if the officers would not opt for immediate retirement, the court would be forced to pass ruling against them that would deprive them of their all pensionary benefits.

During the hearing, the bench took special notice of the appointment of Aliya Rashid as the accountability watchdog’s director general of awareness and prevention. Taking note of Aliya’s prior history as a sportsperson, Justice Muslim asked how she had been appointed to NAB.

Aliya’s counsel Hafiz SA Rehman contended that she had been appointed by former prime minister Zafarullah Jamali using his discretionary powers in 2003 on the grounds that she had outstanding performance as a tennis player. He further contended that the lady had never been assigned the task of inquiry or investigation.

“Sportspersons should be encouraged and celebrated not appointed to government posts in contravention of the law,” Justice Hani observed. He also observed that no matter where the order of appointment comes from, it needed to be within the limits defined by law, and this appointment was not. He asked if the prime minister’s directive will have higher status than the law, adding that the prime minister was also a public servant and appointments by him should be in accordance with the law and the constitution. He observed that the court had declared the appointments even in Islamabad High Court null and void because the IHC chief justice had no discretion while exercising his powers in this regard.

The bench, however, suggested that a sports cell could be set up in NAB and its charge could be given to Aliya Rashid in view of her past experience in sports.

Recalling another case pertaining to a kabbadi playing policeman who had been promoted because he ‘won a match against India’, Justice Hani sarcastically remarked that he was grateful that the policeman in question did not play any further matches ‘or he would have been appointed the inspector general of police’.

Justice Hani said that NAB had been systemically destroyed because of such appointments and that if the institution had maintained strict standards and followed official procedures, more competent people would have been running the show today.

“How can NAB appoint individuals who do not fulfill the educational requirements?” Justice Muslim asked as he addressed the NAB chairman. “We’re not saying you made the appointments but as chairman of the authority, you will have to accept responsibility,” he said.

“Will you be de-notifying these promotions and appointments then?” he further asked. “The only concession we can make is offering these individuals a pension,” he added.

The chairman was ordered to inform the court about the officials’ answers in the next hearing of the case, which will be held today (Tuesday).

In its report, the Establishment Division had informed the Supreme Court that it had observed inconsistencies in at least 273 cases of appointments, promotions, absorptions and deputations of NAB officials from the rank of BPS-16 to BPS-22.

The top court had on January 1 directed the establishment secretary to scrutinize as to whether all the regular and contract appointments, promotions, absorptions and deputations made in NAB till date were in conformity with NAB Employees Terms and Conditions of Services (TCS), 2002 and Method of Appointment and Qualification (MAQ).

In his reply, establishment secretary stated that from 2003 to 2015, a total of 629 appointments on regular basis were made in BPS-16 to BPS-21, however, inconsistencies were observed in 101 cases. Out of these 101 cases, 76 were those where the candidates had not acquired experience purely in the fields of investigations, inquiries, research and legal matters. While the rest of the cases related to issues of qualifications and gain of experience certificates after appointments.