Repatriation of officers to parent depts.: NAB to adhere to committee’s recommendations: spokesman

ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) may soon repatriate its two directors general (DGs) to their parent departments, as a special committee on illegal appointments in the NAB is likely to submit its report to the apex court next week, The News has learnt.

The committee, comprising secretary Establishment Division, a member of Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) and DG HR NAB, was constituted on the orders of Supreme Court.

Sources in the NAB say DG Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Farman Ali and former DG Sukkur Fayyaz Qureshi, now recalled to the NAB Headquarters, are likely to be sent back to their parent departments, as the special committee has not favoured their stay in the bureau.

The spokesman of NAB, when approached, said that NAB does not comment on internal issues. However, he stated that NAB will adhere to the Special Committee's report and it was not confirmed yet what the committee has said about the said two officers.

Prior to this, four DGs have been sacked, at least two repatriated to their parent departments and one DG is immune courtesy a decision of the SC.

Of late, two DGs, Nasir Iqbal and Shakeel Malik, were sent back to their parent department by Chairman NAB Justice (R) Javed Iqbal.

The SC had taken suo moto notice of illegal appointments in the NAB and constituted a three-member inquiry committee, headed by secretary Establishment Division, to examine appointments, promotions, deputations and absorptions made in the bureau since 1999.

Dozens of officers of NAB were served with notices, including DGs, and one Irfan Mangi, member of Panama Papers Joint Investigation Team, got smooth sailing after the SC order protected his job. Regarding Fayyaz Qureshi, the NAB report says, “The committee recommends that the job description of the officer prior to joining NAB did not specifically state that he possessed practical experience in the field of inquiry/investigation/research/legal matters.

Moreover the fresh certificate submitted by the officer stipulates that his core responsibility was to analyse, inquire and scrutinise the estimates for approval of the competent authority coupled with creation of a research laboratory which cannot be taken as that he himself had actually carried out any research; therefore, it does not fall within the parameters of requirement as per advertisement and his services cannot be retained in NAB. Hence, NAB may consider repartition of the officer to his parent department if it is legally possible. He may, however, be considered for fresh recruitment as and when vacancy occurs.”

Earlier, the NAB’s notice to its officers said: “It is submitted that in pursuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 31-03 2017 in the suo motu case (No 13 of 2016) and in accordance with Sections 8.02, 8.03 and Chapter-11 of NAB’s TCS, as the case may be, the 22 officers have been advised to appear for personal hearing in the committee room, Establishment Division Islamabad, if they so desire, along with supporting documents, if any, to satisfy the committee.”