ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday summoned the Chairman National Accountability Bureau (NBA) in a notice case regarding illegalities, contraventions and violations in appointments within NAB.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Amir Hani Muslim and comprising Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Sardar Tariq Masood heard the suo moto notice case. The court also sought report regarding nine officers of NAB who were promoted ignoring the education criteria. The court asked how officers were promoted who did not meet education criteria.
During the course of proceedings, Secretary Establishment Tahir Shahbaz submitted eight page report and informed the court 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. The reply further stated that NAB’s selection board during 2003 to 2016 had considered 15 cases for promotion to the post of director general (BPS-21). Out of these promotion cases, inconsistencies were observed in four cases vis-…-vis conditions for promotion to selection posts as per Method of Appointment and Qualification (MAQ) of NAB, the reply stated.
The reply contended that there was one case where qualifying services of the officer in NAB was less than the prescribed length while three officers were those who were promoted despite inquiry was pending against them.
Similarly, NAB’s selection board considered 64 cases for promotion to the post of Director (BPS-20). However establishment division observed inconsistencies in 25 cases. Out of these 25 cases, secretary establishment submitted, 18 cases were those wherein qualifying service of the officers in NAB was less than the prescribed length while seven cases were those in which officers promoted had not completed the mandatory training, adding that six cases were those wherein superseded officers were reconsidered in review without earning one full PER.
The reply stated that NAB’s selection board during 2003 to 2016 considered 116 cases for promotion to the post of additional director (BPS-19). However, establishment division submitted that it had observed inconsistencies in 48 cases whereby 44 cases were related to the issues of prescribed qualification while one case was regarding promotion without consideration of ACR record and eligibility threshold and three cases were those wherein superseded officers were reconsidered in review without earning one full PER.
Departmental promotion committee (DPC), during 2003 to 2016, considered 207 cases for promotion to deputy director (BPS-18). The establishment division observed inconsistencies in 49 cases wherein 42 cases were related to promotion without consideration of ACR record or eligibility threshold while 15 cases were related to required qualification and five cases related to officers promoted despite pending disciplinary proceedings.
Secretary establishment stated that inconsistencies were observed in 11 out of 207 cases for promotion to the post of assistant director (BPS-17). In cases of 32 appointments by induction, establishment division observed that inconsistencies were found in 26 cases. The reply stated that nature of inconsistencies were less than required qualification and inexperience.
The reply stated that inconsistencies were observed in nine cases out of 395 who came on deputation, adding that nine cases were those who were not approved by appointing authority while two cases were those wherein appointments were made other than the equivalent post.
It contended that 102 appointments were made against the various posts on contract basis but none of them was serving in NAB. Tahir Shahbaz stated that scrutiny was based on record provided by NAB, without taking into account the viewpoint or consultation with any NAB official.
Justice Amir Hani Muslim appreciated the Establishment Division report and remarked that how an officer was promoted without meeting the required qualification and experience. He observed that Establishment Division was the backbone for the Federation and asked how Chairman NAB can form a committee with dictation to Establishment Division.
He remarked that if people were appointed on merit then they would not raise the question of jurisdiction. He remarked that the apex court referred the matter to Establishment Division as NAB did not court orders.
Khawaja Haris counsel for NAB also appeared before the court and informed that the Chairman NAB had formed a committee to review the matter and action would be taken in light of committee report. Later, the court summoned Chairman NAB to appear before court in person and adjourned hearing of the case till Monday.