S&GAD proposes case against ex-LDA official

LAHORE: Taking the LDA City’s financial scam to a logical end, the Punjab government’s S&GAD (Regulation Wing) has suggested the Housing Department to initiate criminal and department proceedings against LDA’s former chief engineer for financial corruption.

S&GAD (Regulation Wing) wrote a letter to the Housing Department dated January 15, 2019, with a subject “Posting of Israr Saeed, Director Engineering LDA after release from custody of National Accountability Bureau (NAB). It stated that the regulation wing has examined the matter and it is observed that as per references dated 14/12/2018 and 04/01/2019, addressed to the DG Anti-Corruption Establishment and Secretary Housing respectively, by the Director Administration LDA, Lahore, both criminal and department proceedings are proposed to be initiated. LDA’s Additional Director General (HQ) said that a department inquiry into the financial scam of LDA City Housing Project was carried out in which former chief engineer Israr Saeed was found guilty of embezzling Rs160 million.

He said the organisation has asked the Punjab government’s opinion in this case and finally S&GAD (Regulation Wing) gave its opinion. He claimed that provincial secretary housing, after getting this letter, has initiated a criminal proceeding under PEEDA Act against Israr Saeed. On the other hand, Israr Saeed, former chief engineer LDA claimed that NAB has already pardoned him so this letter/opinion was null and void.

He said corrupt mafia was making moves against his re-posting in the LDA. ADG (HQ) said that Israr Saeed was pardoned in Ashiana case and this was LDA City’s financial scam. He said it does not mean that a person pardoned in one crime can’t be tried in another case.

S&GAD (Regulation Wing) letter also quoted Section 6 of PEEDA Act regarding the suspension of Israr Saeed and said that an employee against whom action was proposed to be initiated under section 5 may be placed under suspension for a period of 90 days, if in the opinion of the competent authority, suspension was necessary or expedient, and if the suspension period was not extended for 90 days within 30 days shall be deemed to be reinstated. “Provided that the continuation of the period of suspension shall require the prior approval of the competent authority for each period of extension,” the letter said and concluded that further necessary action may be taken by the administrative department under the law.