KARACHI, Nov 2: The Sindh High Court barred the anti-corruption establishment (ACE) on Wednesday from taking further proceedings against the Karachi Building Control Authority and gave the provincial ombudsman six months more to investigate acts of maladministration, including undue promotions, in the authority.

Disposing of a KBCA application seeking a pronouncement on the question whether the ACE, the ombudsman or any other department is competent to review or recheck matters pertaining to promotion of officers in the authority on recommendation of its selection committee and with approval of the competent authority, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Mohammad Athar Saeed, observed that the Sindh Ombudsman Act, 1991, empowered the ombudsman to probe acts that constitute maladministration.

The ombudsman was asked by the high court to ‘look into the question of extensive maladministration prevailing in the KBCA’ in September 2004 when it was noticed that illegal construction was raised by the builder of Trade Tower partly in connivance with ‘some officers in the authority’. It was particularly noticed that ‘architectural approval’ for construction was granted in respect of parking space, which could not be done under the law. In July 2005, the ombudsman was asked to complete his probe within four months.

The bench noted that the ombudsman required the KBCA to produce ‘a large body of record at a very short notice’. The authority was, in particular, told on September 24 to ensure production of personal files of officers promoted to grade 17, 18 and 19 ‘within two days’. On September 29, similar information was desired to be furnished to an ACE inspector. According to applicant’s counsel, M.M. Aqil Awan and Shahid Jamil Khan, senior KBCA officers, including its chief controller, were being ‘harassed and humiliated’ not merely by the ombudsman’s secretariat but also by other agencies like the ACE.

As regards the allegation of harassment, the bench recorded the statement of Additional Advocate-General M. Ahmed Pirzada that ‘the ACE letter for production of service record was based not on any direction from the ombudsman but on press clippings alleging illegal promotions in the KBCA’. “We are extremely doubtful”, the bench observed, “whether such reports (clippings) could even prima facie evidence criminal misconduct for the purpose of initiating proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act”.

Nevertheless, the bench noted, ACE officers, including deputy director Manzoor Ali Khatian, have undertaken that after being apprised of the fact that an inquiry was being conducted by the ombudsman, they would not take any further proceedings till the inquiry report was finalized.

Observing that at times the KBCA was called upon to furnish detailed reports and provide record without due notice, the bench directed the ombudsman’s office to give at least 10 days’ notice for production of any record or document and issue an appropriate receipt whenever documents were furnished. Directions to investigate were only of a general nature and did not pertain to matters already before the court, it clarified, modifying its earlier order so as to give the ombudsman another six months to submit his report.