HYDERABAD: The Hyderabad circuit of the Sindh High Court on Friday dismissed all four petitions, challenging incumbency of Sindh University (SU) Vice Chancellor (VC) Dr Fateh Mohammad Burfat, but observed that the VC was trying to avoid inquiries against him.

In a 20-page judgement authored by Justice Abdul Malik Gaddi, the court ruled that the Sindh chief minister had jurisdiction to form an inquiry committee against the VC which the latter challenged through a petition.

The court said the SHC could not decide cases which involved recording of evidence. “The petitioner is avoiding to face inquiry,” observed the court.

Dr Burfat filed two separate petitions challenging notification of inquiry committee by the Sindh chief minister while Prof Dr Muneeruddin — who was running CNG filling station of the SU — in his plea had claimed that he was being harassed and intimidated in the name of inquiry about the accounts of the filling station. He sought protection from the court.

Dr Arfana Mallah also filed a separate petition, asking the court to refer the corruption case of the VC to the National Accountability Bureau.

The court in its detailed judgement finalised on Thursday noted that it appeared from the record that after disposal of a previous petition (CPD- 4682/2019), Dr Burfat raised a question with regard to constitution of the inquiry committee to probe allegations against him and the government formed another committee vide Oct 4, 2019 notification which showed committee comprising two members to probe allegations of gross misconduct, inefficiency and maladministration against him.

But the notification constituting another committee was challenged by the petitioner in petition (CPD-2380/2019). It said: “During the course of arguments, we specifically asked question from the petitioner’s counsel to point out illegality about the said committee which, as per record, appears to have been formed under law and its members were equivalent in rank (BS-22) to that of petitioner who was working in the same grade, the VC’s counsel had no plausible answer and mere saying that committee members were juniors to the VC is not enough.”

It said perusal of record revealed that time and again different notifications were issued to initiate inquiry against the VC regarding allegations, but he challenged them through petitions and later withdrew them. “Therefore, it appears the petitioner is avoiding to face inquiry against him with regard to serious allegations and to delay matter. Hence, it appears that he has not come before this court with clean hands,” it said.

It noted at this moment, the anti-corruption authority is not in picture and so far no action was taken by the Anti Corruption Establishment (ACE) against the VC and after issuance of Oct 4, 2019 notification, the matter was seized by the government which is competent to take steps to hold inquiry and take steps/actions for elimination of corruption. On a court query, said the order, the assistant accountant general submitted that the VC was a retired government officer and was appointed as VC on tenure basis, therefore, he could not be termed as public servant.

Even otherwise, the CM vide Oct 4 notification formed an inquiry committee comprising Mohammad Waseem and Ms Naheed Shah Durrani, (both grade-22 officers) and the VC appeared before the committee. This fact is evident from his Dec 18, 2019 letter he addressed to the members of the inquiry committee for giving him fair hearing, but according to him in the said letter, he had not raised question with regard to seniority. Therefore, the stance taken by the VC through CPD-2380/19 is an afterthought.

“It is pertinent to mention here that in terms of relevant law, an officer can conduct inquiry against another officer having equal rank. As mentioned above, the question of seniority has not been raised by the petitioner, Fateh Mohammad Burfat, in the aforementioned letter and he already submitted jurisdiction of the inquiry committee. Therefore, the question raised in CP-2380/2019 appears to be an afterthought,” said the order.

It said it was essential to highlight that Section 13 Sub-section (3) of University of Sindh Act, 1972 provided that inquiry regarding allegation of corruption against the VC might be conducted through a probe committee. The CM shall, in case of allegations of inefficiency, corruption, moral turpitude, and maladministration, remove the VC on the basis of substantiated findings of an investigation committee, after giving him an opportunity of show cause against such removal.

“Having perused the above, prima facie, it is appeared that chancellor/CM while exercising powers conferred upon him by law constituted a committee to ascertain the allegation levelled against the petitioner. In this backdrop, it cannot be said the committee was constituted without jurisdiction,” read the order.

It said: “As far as submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner Dr Fateh Mohammad Burfat regarding mala fide on government’s part is concerned that too has not impressed us which being a mixed question of law and fact cannot be dealt with at this stage when no concrete evidence has been brought on record so as to justify interference by this court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.”

“In view of above, it is observed instant petition (CPD-2380/2019) is not maintainable” it said.

About Dr Arfana Mallah’s petition it said allegations fell within the ambit of disputed questions of facts and to prove such questions of fact, it was necessary to record evidence and examination of the record of the University of Sindh.

Published in Dawn, March 14th, 2020