SHC recalls its stay order against transfer of NCCIA official

The Sindh High Court has recalled its interim stay order in respect of appointment of a National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) official but observed that the impugned office order and any further steps shall be subject to the outcome of the petition.

The direction came on a petition of Sindh NCCIA director Shahzad Haider against his transfer and the posting of a junior officer as director.

The petitioner’s counsel, Zamir Ghumro, submitted that the impugned office order of the NCCIA was a violation of the earlier order of the court.

He submitted that the petitioner could not be transferred to the Federal Investigation Agency as he is now part of the NCCIA. He submitted that the respondent officer is a grade 19 officer and he cannot hold the look-after charge of the post of the director, which is a grade 20 post.

He further stated that under the amended Peca, the cyber wing of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had been abolished and all the staff sent to the NCCIA. The counsel submitted that sending the present director of the Sindh NCCIA, who was an employee of the NCCIA, to the FIA was a violation of Section 29 of Peca, which bars such transfers as the FIA has now no concern with cybercrime.

The deputy attorney general opposed the petition and submitted that being a civil servant, the petition is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution.

A high court division bench headed by Justice Mohammad Faisal Kamal Alam, after hearing the arguments of the counsel, observed that the office order was only with regard to the transfer and posting of officials and it is not prejudicial to the petitioner; therefore, the court recalled its earlier interim stay order in respect of the transfer of the petitioner.

The court however put the FIA and NCCIA on notice that the impugned office order and any further steps shall be subject to the outcome of the petition.

The NCCIA had earlier submitted that the agency’s impugned office order was a lawful administrative decision issued under Section 29(2) of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) and it did not violate the petitioner’s fundamental rights.

The NCCIA submitted that the assignment of look-after charge given to another NCCIA officer was a temporary administrative measure justified by the operational needs and did not contravene the Rule 8(B)(1) of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973 or any other judicial precedents.

The NCCIA additional director law submitted that the petitioner’s allegation of failure to fill the post of director through promotion was misconceived. He said the NCCIA was in the process of convening its central selection board to fill the post on a regular basis.

The law director said that giving the temporary assignment of look-after charge to another officer instead of the petitioner was lawful and did not infringe upon the petitioner’s right as seniority was not the sole criterion for such an assignment.