SC seeks details of action against officers in illegal appointments, other cases

KARACHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the chief secretary to seek instructions from the Sindh government what actions would be taken against officers in the light of recommendations of the inquiry committee in cases pertaining to payment of costs of investigation to the investigation officers of the police, illegal appointments in Sindh police and patchy record of the police personnel.

Hearing cases pertaining to payment of cost of investigation to the investigation officers of the police, illegal appointments in Sindh police and patchy record of police personnel, the SC’s three-member bench, headed by Justice Amir Hani Muslim, inquired from the chief secretary what action had been taken by the government in the light of inquiry reports submitted by a three-member committee headed by Additional IG A.D. Khawaja regarding irregularities and lack of transparency in the above mentioned cases.

The court asked the chief secretary to submit his reply after seeking instructions from the government, warning that the court will be compelled to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law in the light of the findings of the inquiry committee report. The court had earlier refused to hear the counsel for the IG of Sindh, Ghulam Haider Jamali, whose licence had been suspended by the Supreme Court in another case.

Irfan Qadir, the counsel for the IG of Sindh, appeared before the court and submitted that his suspension order had been automatically vacated following amendments to the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act and he was no longer a suspended advocate.

However, the court observed that the licence of the counsel was suspended by the Supreme Court and the order was still in field as the same was neither vacated nor modified by the court.

The court observed that the issue was still alive until modified or vacated by the court and directed the counsel to raise the issue before the court which had passed the order for his suspension.

The court questioned filing of the review petitions by the IG of Sindh, observing how can the IG of Sindh challenge the orders when the government law officer had given consent to the constitution of an inquiry committee for conducting an inquiry into illegal appointments, patchy service record and payment of the cost of investigation to the investigation officers of the police.

The IG of Sindh submitted that he had only given consent to the constitution of an inquiry committee for the police officers who had patchy service records.

He submitted that his review petitions with regard to the formation of an inquiry committee for probing alleged corruption in appointments and investigation funds be decided first prior to passing any order.

The court observed that the fact-finding committee had been constituted with the consent of the advocate-general of Sindh to find out irregularities in such matters, and the court did not pass an order against any specific officer.

The court inquired from the chief secretary what action was taken by the government in the light of such inquiry reports, observing that the court would pass its order if the government did not take any step in this regard.

Justice Amir Hani Muslim observed that the court had suggested referring the matter to NAB to investigate into the matter, but considering the request of the advocate-general and with the consent of the IG himself, the committee had been constituted.

The court also took exception to the constitution of an inquiry committee by the IG of Sindh against a member of the fact-finding committee constituted by the court.

The member of the inquiry committee also alleged that they had been influenced by the IG in the garb of a parallel inquiry which could affect their service record.

The court took notice of the IG’s act of calling explanation from a former Driving Licence Branch head, DIG Aftab Pathan, regarding decline of revenue from the DL branch, observing that how a committee could be formed and notice issued without an approval from the home department.

The court directed the IG to take notices issued to the police officers back otherwise the court would consider the IG’s actions as an attempt to frustrate the court’s orders.

NAB REPORT: The chairman of the National Accountability Bureau and other NAB officials appeared before the court on court notices and submitted a “sealed” report on NAB pending inquiries and investigation against police officers.

A NAB counsel submitted that NAB was conducting two inquiries and an investigation into illegal appointments in police and payment of the cost of investigation to the investigation officers.