ISLAMABAD, Sept 12: After his deputy plainly told the Islamabad High Court (IHC) the previous day that he was not up to the task of disciplining an allegedly corrupt officer of the Islamabad administration, the court on Wednesday passed on the job to the chief commissioner.
Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui asked Commissioner Tariq Mehmood Pirzada why the district administration was reluctant to take action against Circle Registrar Malik Deen when it acted quick and strict against ordinary officers facing much less serious charges.
Commissioner Pirzada explained that his administration initiated several inquiries and found some tangible evidence against Malik Deen but his influence and courts’ stay orders came in the way of proceeding against him.
A grade 17 officer, Mr Deen is alleged to have amassed great wealth and power in his position of controlling the matters of cooperative housing societies in rural Islamabad.
There is a widespread perception that Malik Deen’s lifestyle is much beyond his means but little evidence exists to substantiate the perception, according to his boss, the commissioner.
His involvement in the National Assembly Cooperative Housing Society scam and in the appointment of administrators in other housing societies was detected in the last few years but he went into litigation and secured a stay order which is still intact after 18 months, said the commissioner.
Earlier Justice Siddiqui had directed Deputy Commissioner Amir Ali Ahmed to investigate Malik Deen and report to the court in first week of October. Malik Deen was to remain suspended till the next order of the court.
Chaudhry Ihtashamul Haq, counsel for Malik Deen, said he would challenge the suspension order. “My client has instructed our legal firm to file an Intra Court Appeal before a two-member bench against the order of Justice Siddiqui,” he told Dawn. Advocate Haq said adverse observation made by the single member bench, comprising Justice Siddiqui, against Mr Deen would influence the inquiry into the case. “When the judge mentions in his order that a party in a petition is corrupt, how can the inquiry officer deviate from this observation,” he asked.
“Before passing the adverse order, the bench did not hear the point of view of my client,” he claimed.