KARACHI: Secretary given more time in contempt case
By Our Staff Reporter
KARACHI, Sept 19: The Sindh High Court allowed the establishment secretary another opportunity to ensure compliance with its order in respect of promotion of an additional income tax commissioner to grade 21.
Appearing in response to a show-cause notice in a contempt application moved by Khan Matiur Rahman, a grade 20 officer of the income tax group, Secretary Tariq Ali Bukhari submitted through Advocate Abdul Hafeez Pirzada that he was sorry for misunderstanding caused by clubbing together of the petitions.
The applicant officer stated through his counsel, Dr Farogh Nasim, that he moved a writ petition against his supersession in 2002 and it was disposed of by a consent order in 2005 that his performance at the national management course conducted by the Pakistan Administrative Staff College in 2001 shall not be held out against him.
The establishment division and the central selection board, however, consistently acted in violation of the court order and he was superseded subsequently on the basis of his first supersession in 2001, though he was eminently qualified for promotion under the rules.
The officer filed a contempt petition in 2005, which was disposed of along with petitions moved by two of his colleagues by a detailed order on April 6.
The detailed order contained guidelines to be followed by the central selection board while considering cases of promotion. The order said the past conduct or performance of an officer should be based on authentic and verifiable information.
To describe the performance of an officer as ‘lackluster’ in the face of consistently ‘good’ and ‘very good’ ACRs, it said, defied all norms of objectivity.
Refraining from inflicting any punishment for contempt, the bench gave the respondents two months to report compliance. The Supreme Court refused the federal government leave to challenge the order.
The officer moved another contempt application when no order on his promotion was passed by the selection board by June 5, 2006. An attempt to justify his supersession was again made by the respondents and the bench comprising Chief Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Yasmin Abbasy summoned the establishment secretary in person.
Advocate Pirzada submitted on behalf of Secretary Tariq Bukhari that the Supreme Court had been moved to review its order to decline leave to challenge the SHC consolidated order on three petitions, including that of the applicant officer.
The guidelines contained in the order were being duly complied with but it was not for the establishment secretary to promote an officer. Only the prime minister has the authority to order promotions on the recommendation of the central selection board.
