Lahore High Court (LHC) Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Tuesday gave time to Punjab home secretary to file his reply to a writ petition challenging the appointment of Punjab Prisons Inspector General Kokab Nadeem Warraich.
Earlier, a provincial law officer informed the judge that owing to the ‘grave engagement’ of Punjab functionaries in anti-dengue fever campaign, the reply from the home secretary could not reach the court in time. He, however, said that a reply from chief secretary had been sought, who defended the appointment of the respondent. The officer sought more time to submit reply on behalf of the home secretary, on which the judge adjourned hearing till September 29.
Meanwhile, counsel for the respondent IG filed his power of attorney and sought time to file his reply to the petition. Mian Farooq Nadeem filed the petition, submitting that after the retirement of former Punjab Prisons IG Sarfraz Ahmad Mufti on April 23, 2008, he was given additional charge of the vacant post. At that time the petitioner was posted as DIG Prisons Multan. He said his case for promotion against the vacant post was also forwarded to the provincial selection board by Home Department, however, in February 2009, governor’s rule was imposed in the province and he was directed to relinquish the additional charge of Punjab Prisons IG.
Later, he said, during the governor’s rule, the respondent, Kokab Nadeem Warraich, DIG prisons Faisalabad, was posted against the vacant post by adopting self styled procedure over and above the law. The petitioner submitted that the appointment of the respondent, who was three years junior to him, was not sustainable being contrary to rule 10(A) and 10(B) of Punjab Civil Servants (appointment and conditions of services) Rules 1974. Petitioner said that according to rules, the government was required to make appointment against the vacant post of Punjab Prisons IG either on regular basis, acting charge basis or current charge basis.
However, the government chose to appoint and post the respondent against the vacant post of BS-21 in his own pay and scale BS-19 in violation of the rules. Moreover, petitioner said he had successfully qualified 93rd national management course whereas the respondent was holding the post of IG prisons without qualifying the mandatory course. He prayed that the appointment of the respondent be declared null and void and without lawful authority. He also sought court’s directions for the government to consider him for appointment against the vacant post in the light of Punjab Civil Servants Rules 1974.
The court will resume hearing on September 13. Federal govt issued notice to explain AGP’s appointment: Lahore High Court Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Tuesday issued notice to federal government for September 26 on a writ petition challenging the appointment of Akhtar Bulund Rana as auditor general of Pakistan. The judge issued this notice during the hearing of a petition moved by Rana Ilm-ud-Din, submitting that there were serious allegations against Akhtar and he should have not been appointed on such an important post. He alleged that federal government appointed Rana as auditor general Pakistan to cover up its corruption.
He said that under Article 62 and 63 of the constitution, a delinquent person could not be appointed on a constitutional post. The petitioner said that on August 27 last, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry wrote a letter to President Asif Ali Zardari, showing concern over Akhtar’s appointment. According to the CJP’s letter, the charges included obtaining Canadian nationality without seeking prior permission from the government, travelling abroad on three Pakistani passports and two national identification cards and sexual harassment of his subordinate during service.
The letter also reads that Akhtar did not qualify for his promotion to grade 22 and he also ‘falsely accused’ former auditor general Tanveer Agha before the supreme judicial council. However, President Zardari rejected CJP’s concerns and appointed Rana as AGP, saying his dual nationality was no impediment in his appointment and he had been exonerated from sexual harassment allegations. The petitioner requested the court to set aside his appointment by declaring it unconstitutional and illegal.
