close
Thursday April 25, 2024

Ad-hocism everywhere, has govt failed to such extent: Supreme Court

By Sohail Khan
February 21, 2020

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that holding two public offices simultaneously on permanent basis is against the law and asked Air Marshal Arshad Mahmood Malik either to retain his Pakistan Air Force (PAF) post or his deputed post of Chairman at Pakistan International Airlines (PIA).

A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsen and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah heard case of Air Marshal Arshad Malik’s plea, seeking stay against a Sindh High Court (SHC) order restraining him from working as PIA CEO, with a suo motu case pertaining to the national carrier’s privatisation.

The court directed Air Marshal Arshad Mahmood Malik to select one public office and submit his reply until first week of March. The court ruled that the national flag carrier needs a permanent chairman, adding that making temporary appointment of the PIA chief sparks the non-seriousness of the government.

“Everything is being run on ad-hocism and nothing has been changed even the chairman of Capital Development Authority (CDA) was also appointed on temporary basis,” Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed observed.

The chief justice said that public should be provided good services on reasonable fares, adding that Arshad Malik cannot retain two public offices simultaneously. “Appointment on deputation is illegal,” the CJP remarked.

The court asked Naeem Bokhari, counsel for Arshad Mahmood Malik, to ask his client which post he wants to retain, to which the counsel sought time.

During the proceedings, the court expressed dissatisfaction over the report submitted on missing plane of PIA. The chief justice said that Arshad Malik should relinquish the service of Air Force and come to PIA to which the counsel submitted that a retired officer had been appointed as Chief Executive of PIA, however, the union had blocked him in a room. The court rejected the stance of the counsel while Justice Sajjad Ali Shah asked the counsel if his argument was accepted then the government should close all the government offices.

“You want to say that the union would not allow running the national flag carrier if there was no pressure of Army,” the judge asked and questioned as to whether the government has failed to this extent.

Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed observed that the Army could not deliver after taking the charge of Pakistan Steels Mills, adding that the Mills instead of making profit, was causing loss in billions.

The chief justice observed that the national flag carrier needs such a head who could make it as per international standards, adding that public should be provided best facilities on reasonable fares.

When the court took up the matter of missing plane of PIA, counsel for the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) informed the court that the PIA Board did not inform the court of actual facts, adding that investigation in this regard is in progress.

Justice Ijazul Ahsen asked as to when and where the decision was made regarding the selling of the plane, the counsel for PIA replied that maybe the German CEO of PIA had taken the decision, adding that the Board had decided that the plane would not be used for commercial purpose. He said the Board had also not decided about the selling of the plane as well, adding that the plane was used in a shooting held in Malta and from there it went to Germany.

The chief justice termed ‘grave’ the reports of the plane being lent to an Israeli production company.

Slaman Akram Raja, counsel for PIA, submitted that the PIA got Rs210,000 in lieu of the plane used in the shooting. The counsel further submitted that it is being examined as to why the plane remained ground in Germany for some time. The CJP observed that a former prime minister toll the PIA plane to London and till his treatment, the plane remained there. “The court knows everything and our memory is not so weak when we travel we don’t get the plane and ticket,” the CJP remarked. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing until first week of March.