IHC moved against FIA for ‘promoting favourites’

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has been asked to stop the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) from promoting and favouring blue-eyed officers allegedly occupying key posts in the agency illegally.
Around 11 officers of FIA have knocked the doors of the IHC after getting no relief from the department which is allegedly hell-bent on adjusting and promoting those officers who were illegally appointed during the early 1990s and were sacked by the PML-N’s second government and were reinstated by the PPP government despite the fact that they did not meet the reinstatement criteria fixed by the PPP government.
The writ petition (1801/2015) is against officers occupying important public offices of AD/DD Investigation in the FIA without undergoing the mandatory and compulsory competitive process of the FPSC.
Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui has sought comments from the Ministry of Interior, FIA headquarters and the impugned officers.The IHC has been informed that one Zafeer-ul-Haq Qasmi is enlisted at Serial No. 9 in the said Provisional Seniority List as on 07.11.2014 and at the serial No34 of the final seniority list as on 27.02.2015. He was appointed as ad hoc Inspector on 29.10.1992 without fulfilling codal formalities and the same was further terminated due to illegal appointment.
He was again reinstated in the establishment of FIA without any authority of law on 10.05.2011 on the pretext of Section 4 of the Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010. The said appointment of Qasmi was illegal and liable to be set aside being void ab-initio as;
On 29.10.1992 at the time of initial appointment, he was not appointed through the FPSC bypassing the mandatory competitive selection process. Secondly, he was not falling within the ambit of criteria given for the re-instatement of sacked employees at the time of re-instatement on 10.05.2011.
In the preamble of the Sacked Employees Act (No. XXII of 2010), the applicability is clearly stated in the said act, as to provide the relief to the persons who were appointed during the period from the first day of November, 1993 to the 30th day of November, 1996 and were dismissed/ removed or terminated fom services during the period 1st day of November, 1996 to the 12th day of October,of October, 1999. Therefore, the above-mentioned officer despite not falling under the re-instatement period, was given undue benefit of reinstatement.
Similar is the case of Mr. Alam Zaib who is enlisted at Serial No. 10 in the said PSL as on 07.11.2014 and at the serial No. 26 of the final seniority list as on 27.02.2015. He was appointed as ad hoc Inspector on 16.12.1993 without fulfilling codal formality and after termination/dismissal he was again reinstated in the FIA on 15.04.2010 and was assigned the office of Assistant Director, which is one step higher post/ designation from the previous post.
Mr. Tahir Jan Durrani was appointed as ad hoc Inspector on 22-10-1994 and not through the FPSC. Later he was reinstated to the post of AD Investigation FIA, without any authority of law on 18.10.2011 on the pretext of Section 4(a) of the Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010. He also did not fall within the criteria of employees to be reinstated.
He was recruited on ad hoc basis and was given opportunity for confirmation through the FPSC in year 2005-06 in relaxation of all existing rules and regulations. He was given full opportunity to appear in the examination conducted by the FPSC but he failed.
He was declared unfit for retention in service by the FPSC vide Letter No. F.8.12/2005-R-IV (Roll No. 40011/I) dated 06.03.2006 but he managed to continue by hoodwinking all the service rules and regulations.
Mr. Rasheed Ahmed Soomro was appointed as ad hoc Inspector on 02.05.1995 without fulfilling codal formality and the same was further terminated. He was again reinstated in the establishment of FIA on 15.04.2010 and was assigned the office of Assistant Director.
He was not falling within the ambit of criteria given for the re-instatement of Sacked Employees at the time of re-instatement.
Mr. Zubair Ahmed Pechuho was appointed as ad hoc Assistant Director on 10.09.1989 without fulfilling codal formality i.e. test Interview by the FPSC. He was given opportunity for confirmation in relaxation of all existing rules and regulations to appear in the interview conducted by the FPSC but he did not qualify the interview.
The FPSC held interviews for nine ad hoc Assistant Directors of FIA, appointed in 1989, but he managed to continue by hoodwinking all the service rules and regulations and holding the office of a regular Assistant Director (Investigation) FIA without any authority of law.
Five ad hoc Assistant Directors of FIA, appointed in 1989, qualified the FPSC’s interview and their services were accordingly regularized in 2006.
Mr. Sajjad Mustafa Bajwa was appointed as ad hoc Assistant Director on 18.01.1990 without fulfilling codal formalities of test, interview by the FPSC. He too was given opportunity for confirmation in relaxation of all existing rules and regulations to appear in the interview conducted by the FPSC but he did not qualify the interview.
Five ad hoc Assistant Directors of FIA, appointed in 1989, qualified the FPSC’s interview and their services were accordingly regularized in 2006 but not of Mr. Bajwa.
Mr. Abdul Hafeez was appointed Inspector/Legal in FIA on 11-6-1990. He was transferred to the NAB in 2004 where there is no cadre for law officers. The NAB has Prosecution Wing that hires services of lawyers/ prosecutors on contract basis. He was promoted as Assistant Director in NAB on 19-4-2007. That the Inspectors of Investigation cadre who were transferred to NAB from FIA in 2004 and promoted by NAB as Assistant Directors in 2007, along with other officers, were later reverted from NAB to FIA in 2008.
Despite severe objections and reservations in writing against the irregularities in the impugned seniority lists of Assistant Directors (Investigation), FIA dated 7-11-2014 and 27-2-2015, issued by the Ministry of Interior as well as petitioners’ plea for personal hearing in the petitioners’ representation against the impugned seniority lists, no opportunity of personal hearing nor any verbal or written response was ever received from the respondents.