- PAC overturns subcommittee’s recommendation for reference against AGP Rana, summons AGP on June 3 for ‘personal hearing’
- DAG defends provision of ‘excessive’ salary to Akhtar Buland Rana while opposition members view AGP’s removal bid similar to that of NADRA, PEMRA chiefs
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has decided to give another chance to Auditor General of Pakistan (AGP) Akhtar Buland Rana to explain his position on the allegations levelled against him for drawing ‘excessive salary’ from the national exchequer – a charge vehemently denied by the AGP and accountant general of Pakistan revenue (AGPR).
The decision was taken during a special in-camera sitting of the PAC with PAC Chairman Syed Khursheed Shah in the chair.
Rana has been accused of drawing excessive salary as compared to other Grade-22 officers. He has been blamed for drawing salary at par with the judges of superior courts. Later, the matter was raised in PAC which formed a subcommittee tasking it to examine the excessive salary and privileges attained by the AGP in the light of SRO 1074-(1)/2007.
On Thursday, the subcommittee, headed by Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) lawmaker Junaid Anwar Chaudhry had recommended the PAC to ask the government to file a reference against the AGP under Article 209 of the Constitution to get him removed from his office for misconduct.
However, the PAC meeting on Monday overturned the recommendation of its subcommittee and decided to give another opportunity to AGP Rana to appear before its members and explain his position.
ON GETTING THE AGP REMOVED:
A source who attended the meeting confided in Pakistan Today that the meeting reviewed the report of its subcommittee formed to probe the allegations against the AGP which had recommended the PAC to send a reference to the Supreme Judicial Council against Rana under Article 209 of the Constitution to remove him from the constitutional slot.
The source added that as the scrutiny and audit of the spending of the first financial year of the incumbent government is starting on July 1, the PML-N government wanted to remove the “defiant” AGP who had refused to remove some audit paras against top PML-N and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leaders from the audit report for financial year 2013-14.
The source said that during the PAC meeting, committee members from PPP, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Awami Muslim League objected to the recommendations of the PAC subcommittee and proposed to provide another chance to the AGP to clear his position. They opined that the government’s “witch-hunt” must be stopped.
The source added that Naveed Qamar, Khursheed Shah, Shaikh Rasheed and Shafqat Mahmood opposed the recommendation of the committee and called for reviewing the matter by the PAC itself. They opined that the AGP was being targeted as were the cases of National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) and Pakistan Electronic Media Regulation Authority (PEMRA) chiefs.
The source added that PML-N lawmaker Sheikh Rohail Asghar also supported the views expressed by the opposition and said that the AGP should be heard before jumping to any conclusion.
CHAUDHRY CONFIRMS PAC DECISION:
When approached, PAC Subcommittee Chairman Junaid Anwar Chaudhry confirmed that the PAC had decided to give another chance to the AGP. However, he added that the PAC was not divided over the subject matter.
Chaudhry said that it was a unanimous decision by the PAC to give another chance to Rana who had decided not to appear before the subcommittee for personal hearing.
“Finally, agreeing to the proposal put forth by some members, PAC Chairman Khursheed Shah decided to provide another chance to Rana for personal hearing,” he added.
OFFICIAL DEFENDS ‘EXCESSIVE’ SALARY TO AGP:
Talking to Pakistan Today, Deputy Auditor General (DAG) Manzar Hafeez Mian, who was then serving as AGPR and had also approved the additional salary to the AGP, defended his decision of raising Rana’s salary.
“Look, this is the only constitutional post whose salary has been determined under the Schedule for Pay, Allowances and Pension of Section 3 of the Auditor General’s (Functions, Powers and Terms and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2001. Under Clause (a) of this schedule, it is mentioned that the paid salary for AGP would be 20 percent higher than the maximum salary payable to an officer in Revised Basic Pay Scale-22. The term ‘salary’ for the purpose of this Clause also includes ad-hoc reliefs/increases sanctioned by the government for civil servants from time to time. Moreover, under Clause (b) of the schedule, the AGP is entitled to all such benefits including entitlement pertaining to travel, as are admissible to a minister of state,” he said adding that hence, the salary of AGP includes all sorts of allowances, including Monetization Allowance.
Ultimately, the AGP would be paid a lump sum salary which is to be determined and fixed by the AGPR and not by the AGP himself, he said.
Mian said that he was satisfied with his judgement for fixing the salary of the AGP Rana.
“If anyone has any objection to the AGPR’s decision, the matter may be verified with the incumbent AGPR. Even if any officer gets excessive payment, the amount could be deducted from salary of the officer,” he added.
IS RANA’S DEFIANCE ‘REVOLT’ AGAINST PARLIAMENT?
Another source privy to the proceedings of the PAC subcommittee against Rana said that the PML-N lawmakers were projecting the AGP’s defiance as a “revolt” against the parliament.
Rana was asked by the PAC subcommittee to appear before it and satisfy the committee about the alleged excessive amount drawn as salary. However, the AGP, who was out of country those days, refused to appear before the committee, writing to the subcommittee that it had no legal provision to question his conduct. He told the committee members that his conduct could only be discussed by the Supreme Judicial Council.
“The committee members took this response as an insult and the PAC Subcommittee Chairman Junaid Anwar Chaudhry, a PML-N lawmaker, sought legal advice from Law Secretary Barrister Zafarullah against AGP’s salary case. The Law Ministry in its view stated that the committee could discuss the remuneration of the AGP as it was a ‘voted’ budget item,” source said.
“In response to the legal view of the Law Ministry, Rana contacted Barrister Zafarullah and asked him to read Article 81 of the Constitution which provides that like the judges of the apex court and other constitutional post holders, the remuneration of the AGP was ‘charged’ upon the Federal Consolidated Fund, meaning that the same could not be discussed even by the parliament itself,” the source added.
“The law secretary admitted his mistake and informed the subcommittee that the remuneration of the AGP could not be discussed by the PAC.”