ISLAMABAD: Noted writer and former state-run television Chairman Ataullah Qasmi has told the Supreme Court (SC) that he had neither been sanctioning authority for any expenditure incurred or alleged to have been incurred nor did he ever sanction any expenditure.
All expenditure were sanctioned by the relevant authorities as defined in different financial rules/regulations of the state-run TV, he said in his application submitted to the apex court, adding that all expenditure is pre-audited before sanction under Controller General of Accounts Ordinance. Onus of ascertaining admissibility of such expenditures lies with the sanctioning authorities which in some cases was the Managing Director himself including the current Information Secretary. No sanctioning authority of the television was pressurised by Qasmi in any matter or at any stage.
Qasmi said that at its 119th meeting held on February 17, 2000 the state-run TV Board of Directors approved the facilities for both its full-time and ex-officio chairman. This decision was confirmed at the 120th meeting of the Board on March 11, 2000. These facilities included one chauffeur driven car; no limit POL; no limit office entertainment; no limit entertainment of guests outside office; no limit air travel (club class), no limit mobile telephones; no limit two STD office telephones etc.
The application said that the television administration including the previous and current information secretary (who is also the Principal Accounting Officer) never questioned the simultaneous applicability while sanctioning the expenditure in relation to Qasmi or his office. All expenditures on office renovation, production of programme, advertisements, etc. were approved by the successive chief and not by Qasmi.
Qasmi has already returned Rs478578 on account of second vehicle expense and Rs22000 on account of residential telephone bill. Not a single penny was sanctioned by him as he was not sanctioning authority, he said. Moreover the claim of millions is not untenable as there is nothing that the TV has claimed that was disbursed actually on account of promos or transmission costs. The programme that Qasmi anchored was not conceived, produced and telecast to earn money. “It was developed with a conscious approach to preserve our historical, literary and cultural treasures with a view to pass them on to our coming generations who should not only feel proud of their rich heritage and past glory but should also carry forward these literary and socio-cultural traditions and values as a sacred trust for the posterity.
All aspects of the programme were thrashed out by professionals, mechanics of its production were discussed to the minutest detail, programme budget estimates were approved by the then Managing Director in accordance with the rules and procedures, participants of various episodes of the programme were selected with careful consideration and mutual deliberations, adjustments in production methodology were made in the light of feedback at various stages, and conscious efforts were made to ensure that the subtle message of the programme reaches its target audience in the most efficacious way. Hence, it's promotional strategy.”
It was reported that at the verbal instructions of Qasmi the programme was telecasted on the state-run television Home as well, and that since Qasmi was the Chairman, his instructions could not be turned down.” This is a maliciously false allegation, he claimed and said he never gave any such orders; rather it was the job of the relevant directors or managing director to decide which programme should run on which network and at what time and frequency. The chairman has nothing to do with any of this. The programme continued to telecast during the tenure of current Chief Sukhera.
While calculating the transmission cost of Rs51648873 which is notional in nature and which state-run television itself has not admitted as an expense, the Auditor admits that no loss was occurred to the state-run television. There is a transmission attributable to each and every programme telecast not only on state-run television but all channels telecasting in Pakistan, Qasmi said.
Can the Chairman be foisted with transmission costs of a programme simply because it was his idea and he appeared in it? he asked. The Auditor also notes the statement of the present Managing Director that the programme had a good concept. In these circumstances it is absolutely unfair and illogical and unreasonable to attribute any loss (that never occurred as admitted by the auditor) on account of production costs and notional transmission cost of this programme to Qasmi.
