Officer blames IB for blocking his promotion due to ‘jealousies’

ISLAMABAD: An intelligence officer has filed a petition in Islamabad High Court (IHC) in which he suggested that he is being denied promotion due to “departmental jealousies, grudge and obsession” whereas his department said he had an average understanding of governmental issues and made no effort to improve.

Maj (R) Nadeem Arif Chaudhry is BS-19 officer of Intelligence Bureau and has repeatedly been deferred by the Central Selection Board (CSB). In 2018, the CSB superseded him on the ground that he failed to “meet the required threshold of 70 and also, was placed in category C,” according to his petition. He moved the IHC against this which ordered his consideration afresh.

From then onward, the CSB reviewed his promotional prospects on three occasions, the last in January 2021, and deferred him each time. When his case was considered in May 2020, the second last time, the ground made basis of the decision were also mentioned. In it a dossier was mentioned which contained adverse remarks, according to the petitioner.

“That the Board (CSB) was informed that the officer has an average understanding of [government] issues. He exhibited limited efforts and willingness to improve and seriously lacked interpersonal skills,” it said and quoted the report of senior management course of National School of Public Policy. “His training report highlighted his casual approach towards effective team building. His PERs rated him in the lower half of the group in all the [three] facts of leadership, friendship and professionalism. His promotion potential was rated as limited.”

In addition, the departmental report to the CSB as quoted in his petition suggests the officer was presently facing a disciplinary proceeding on account of misconduct and misbehavior towards his seniors. As his case was taken up in January 2021 by the CSB, the board was informed that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him. Further, the petition reads, the board observed that the officer has earned an average PER for 2019. “The reporting officer has mentioned that he was not fit for promotions. Subsequent to the above discussion, the board decided to recommend the officer for deferment,” reads his petition quoting the reasons cited for his deferment.

By way of background, Maj (R) Nadeem was inducted in IB during the Musharraf regime courtesy his close relation with Tariq Aziz who was principal secretary to the ruler, according to a former IB officer. He was prematurely retired from the army after a famous incident in Lahore when a police inspector was allegedly manhandled by him in the Fortress Stadium who was also kept in detention. Later, while serving in IB, he was accused of awarding a contract in Murree at exorbitant rates to a contractor. The inquiry in this regard is pending final decision. Nadeem didn’t pick up the phone when contacted for his comment.

However, going by his petition, he was charge-sheeted three times. In the first instance which occurred in 2018, an inquiry held by the same was withdrawn by the department. Second charge sheet served in 2019, according to the petition, was concluded with the inquiry officer observing that it was a minor administrative issue and could have been resolved through excellent managerial/ administrative skills. Third charge sheet was also issued in 2019 but charges were dropped “after acts of commission and omission on his part have not been substantiated.” In the petition, Nadeem has held that no disciplinary proceeding is pending against him.

Then issues related to his behavior also popped up and, according to the petition, the DG IB placed him under special report for a period of six months further extendable for another six months to monitor his conduct and behavior. The petitioner has held that incorrect information has been given to the CSB by the IB “just to cause harm and damage the career of the petitioner and to block the way of the petitioner from promotion to BS-20 due to departmental jealousies, grudge and obsession.” He further submitted that the remarks of the department that he was not fit for promotion are not based on any tangible evidence and record and that misleading treatment was meted out due to departmental jealousies. “The petitioner has been made a target of some jealous officers who were the greatest blockade in the promotion,” he said, praying the court that the charges against him must be dropped.