ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) slapped a fine of Rs50,000 and repatriated an influential headmaster, who served as the director general National Counter-Terrorism Authority (Nacta) and additional secretary National Security Division.

IHC Justice Babar Sattar imposed the cost of Rs50,000 on Khushdil Khan Malik, who was appointed as headmaster in BS-18 in 1996 in the Federal Government Educational Institutions (Cant/Garrison) but worked on key posts in different ministries and divisions of the federal government since 2004 on deputation basis.

The Establishment Division in 2019 repatriated Mr Malik to his parent department but he challenged the order in the IHC.

Earlier, he had filed a number of petitions in the IHC, seeking relief related to his posting/transfer and absorption in the Secretariat Group. Since his appointment, he was promoted to BS-20.

The court order stated that the petitioner was appointed as a deputy secretary in 2004 in the federal government on deputation. The period of deputation was extended from time to time.

Petitioner served on key posts in different ministries, divisions since 2004

“It appears from the record that due to alleged complaints of misconduct, the respondent [Malik] was repatriated to the parent department,” the court order said, adding he sought permanent absorption in the Secretariat Group but his request was turned down for being not eligible.

As per the court’s record, Establishment Division in 2012 and 2016 repatriated Mr Malik to his parent department but Justice Sattar wondered that both the orders were not implemented.

The court order explained the relevant paragraphs of the judicial orders issued on his successive petitions.

Counsel for the Establishment Division Raja Saimul Haq Satti argued before the court that “the petitioner is a civil servant employed by the Federal Government Educational Institutions (Cant/Garrison), which is an attached department of the Defence Division as per Rules of Business 1973 and consequently a part of the federal government itself. As a civil servant employed by the federal government, he is mandated to serve as directed by the federal government in exercise of powers under section 10 of the Civil Service Act.

“However, as he does not fall within the scope of Rule 20A(1) being an employee of the federal government itself, he could never have been appointed against another post within the federal government.” The court order said it could only be done on a permanent basis through one of three modes of appointment, posting and transfer rules subject to compliance with the selection process.

The court ruled that Mr Malik was not entitled to be transferred to any department of the federal government other than his parent department.

Taking exception to the officer’s habit of filing excessive petitions, the court order said: “Given the litany of complaints brought by the petitioner before this court in relation to terms and conditions of his service, this petition is being dismissed subject to the cost of Rs50,000 payable by him.”

Published in Dawn, March 7th, 2021