The cost of doing anti-corruption job in Pakistan

ISLAMABAD: The cost of doing anti-corruption job in Pakistan is tough and only those who are made to pay the price know about this.

Chief Commissioner Income Tax Rawalpindi Tanvir Akhtar Malik is an interesting case study to understand how an officer, whose integrity remained unquestionable throughout his career, is made to suffer because he did not show favours during his years long anti-corruption jobs.

For many of his colleagues and contemporaries, he might be a dry person, who does not socialize much but no one questions his integrity while professionally he has always been assessed either as “outstanding” or “very good” by his seniors.

He was chosen for NAB for anti-corruption job by the then reputed chairman Lt Gen Amjad because of Malik’s standing. Serving NAB for six long years, he was instrumental in all major NAB cases involving acquisition of assets beyond known and fair means.

In 2005 he returned to his parent department -- FBR -- where he was made in charge of FBR’s Vigilance Cell, a newly created unit meant for integrity management. In this capacity he conducted integrity checks of almost all officers of FBR and once again earned the wrath of innumerable colleagues, both seniors and juniors. He continued in this position till 2010.

In February, 2011 he was appointed as founding Director HQs of newly created Directorate General Intelligence and Investigation-Inland Revenue in the FBR where he served till October, 2014. Here though primarily he was responsible for counter tax fraud and evasion initiatives, yet his work against issuance of bogus sales tax refunds earned him more enemies, both known and unknown.

In October, 2014, he was appointed as Chief Management FBR. In this capacity he aggressively pursued anti-corruption tasks including initiating, monitoring and finalizing over 250cases of misconduct, corruption and indiscipline.

After serving for 14 years in different anti-corruption positions, last year he was appointed as Chief Commissioner IT Rawalpindi and then started his ordeal which sees no end.

Initially a draft charge sheet against Tanvir Malik was prepared and forwarded to the office of Finance Minister for onward transmission to PM Secretariat. It concerned a tax case relating to a bank wherein the FBR’s reference was dismissed by a high court on account of non-prosecution. 

The FBR opted for an appeal before the SC and during proceeding the SC took serious note of the non-prosecution by the Board. The SC issued the direction that the FBR should identify the officer for this negligence. Under direction of the then chairman FBR, Tanvir Malik being the Chief Management FBR furnished the names of the officers and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them. One of the accused officers approached SC with the allegation that Malik had given his name without the consent of his superiors and thus he misguided FBR and SC both.

On the basis of the officer’s complaint, the FBR initiated action against Malik only when he had already taken charge of the office of Chief Commissioner Rawalpindi. A draft chargesheet was prepared against the officer and sent to the Prime Minister Office through the Finance Minister’s Office.

However, the Finance Minister Office returned the charge sheet with certain observations, for review and recheck. On rechecking FBR Management found that all allegations leveled against Malik were false and baseless. This fact later was admitted by FBR in its written statement filed before the Supreme Court on 3rd May, 2016.

Later in another pending Supreme Court case, Malik was shown by his own department to have hoodwinked the apex court. This time the allegation was that he had concealed one case of non-prosecution by the department. In actual, he had furnished the information to the FBR for SC, which was presented to him by the concerned commissioners, additional commissioners and deputy commissioners.

However, later on FBR conceded in the SC that over 300 similar cases of non-prosecution have surfaced in different field formations of the FBR. However, he is the only Chief Commissioner, who was being targeted.

In this case, Malik’s department in writing told the apex court that he had conceded the allegations, which was not the fact. The SC confronted as to why did not the department initiate action against the officer.

On this, the department forwarded another charge sheet against Malik to FM Office giving the impression as if Supreme Court had ordered initiation of proceedings against the officer. This time Finance Minister Office forwarded the same to Establishment Division for approval of the PM Office.

Against this move, Tanvir Malik filed a representation dated 11th July, 2016, addressing Secretary Establishment Division, who referred the matter to FBR for fact finding in the instant case. Chairman FBR in turn deputed Mrs. Raana Seerat, BS-22, Member (Tax Payers Audit), FBR for probe. After thorough examination the inquiry officer completely absolved Malik and submitted her findings to the chairman. FBR Management however preferred not to share the findings of inquiry officer with the Establishment Division. This report was also not shared with the apex court.

Tanvir Malik approached the apex court for justice. In response to his petition, on 22-9-2016 the honourable Supreme Court categorically clarified that: “This CMA (civil miscellaneous application) has been moved by Muhammad Tanveer Akhtar for being impleaded as party in these proceedings on the ground that an adverse order has been passed against him in his absence without hearing his point of view. We have gone through the order dated 5.5.2016 of this court. It by no attribute is final nor is it adverse in that sense.”

Meanwhile FBR Management while submitting the promotion proforma (BS-20 to 21) to Establishment Division has wrongly stated that disciplinary proceedings are pending against Malik. This statement was not only against the facts but it actually aimed at thwarting the rightful promotion of Malik which is due by now. Copy of this proforma, which is highly confidential otherwise, has been provided to an NGO, so as to facilitate it in its witch-hunt campaign against Malik.

On 30-09-2016 Malik filed yet another representation to Secretary Establishment, wherein this whole issue of gross victimization has been raised once again requesting his intervention. Finance Minister Office was also kept in the loop. Both the said offices referred the issue to FBR for comments.

On 5th December, 2016 FBR’s case was fixed at the Supreme Court, which simply adjourned the case. However, some selected media houses reported that the SC had issued instruction for initiation of proceedings against Malik. It was later rebutted by the FBR but the campaign was aimed at targeting Malik at a time of his expected promotion.

Till date, the Supreme Court written order dated 22-9-2016 is in the field, wherein it has been categorically confirmed that there is no adverse order or remarks against Malik.

The Promotion Board, which will meet next week, is presently fed with the distorted information that Malik is facing disciplinary proceedings under directions from the Supreme Court.

Irony is that the Supreme Court of Pakistan even does not know how an officer of an outstanding repute is being denied promotion in the name of apex court.