ISLAMABAD: The Establishment Division has informed the Supreme Court that it had observed inconsistencies in at least 273 cases of appointments, promotions, absorptions and deputations of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) officials from the rank of BPS-16 to BPS-22.
Secretary Establishment Division Syed Tahir Shahbaz submitted an eight-page reply pursuant to the top court’s orders in suo moto case against alleged illegalities, contraventions and violations in appointment within NAB.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice Amir Hani Muslim will take up the case for hearing on Wednesday (today).
The top court had on January 1 directed the establishment secretary to scrutinize as to whether all the regular and contract appointments, promotions, absorptions and deputations made in NAB till date were in conformity with NAB Employees Terms and Conditions of Services (TCS), 2002 and Method of Appointment and Qualification (MAQ).
In his reply, establishment secretary stated that from 2003 to 2015, a total of 629 appointments on regular basis were made in BPS-16 to BPS-21, however, inconsistencies were observed in 101 cases. Out of these 101 cases, 76 were those where the candidates had not acquired experience purely in the fields of investigations, inquiries, research and legal matters. While the rest of the cases related to issues of qualifications and gain of experience certificates after appointments.
The reply further stated that NAB’s selection board during 2003 to 2016 had considered 15 cases for promotion to the post of director general (BPS-21). “Out of these promotion cases, inconsistencies were observed in four cases vis-à-vis conditions for promotion to selection posts as per MAQ of NAB,” the reply stated.
The reply contended that there was one case where qualifying services of the officer in NAB was less than the prescribed length while three officers were those who were promoted despite inquiry was pending against them.
Similarly, NAB’s selection board considered 64 cases for promotion to the post of Director (BPS-20). However establishment division observed inconsistencies in 25 cases.
Out of these 25 cases, secretary establishment submitted, 18 cases were those wherein qualifying service of the officers in NAB was less than the prescribed length while seven cases were those in which officers promoted had not completed the mandatory training, adding that six cases were those wherein superseded officers were reconsidered in review without earning one full PER.
The reply stated that NAB’s selection board during 2003 to 2016 considered 116 cases for promotion to the post of additional director (BPS-19). However, establishment division submitted that it had observed inconsistencies in 48 cases whereby 44 cases were related to the issues of prescribed qualification while one case was regarding promotion without consideration of ACR record and eligibility threshold and three cases were those wherein superseded officers were reconsidered in review without earning one full PER.
Departmental promotion committee (DPC), during 2003 to 2016, considered 207 cases for promotion to deputy director (BPS-18). The establishment division observed inconsistencies in 49 cases wherein 42 cases were related to promotion without consideration of ACR record or eligibility threshold while 15 cases were related to required qualification and five cases related to officers promoted despite pending disciplinary proceedings.
Secretary establishment further stated that inconsistencies were observed in 11 out of 207 cases for promotion to the post of assistant director (BPS-17). In cases of 32 appointments by induction, establishment division observed that inconsistencies were found in 26 cases. The reply stated that nature of inconsistencies were less than required qualification and inexperience.
The reply further stated that inconsistencies were observed in nine cases out of 395 who came on deputation, adding that nine cases were those who were not approved by appointing authority while two cases were those wherein appointments were made other than the equivalent post. It contended that 102 appointments were made against the various posts on contract basis but none of them was serving in NAB.
Tahir Shahbaz stated that scrutiny was based on record provided by NAB, without taking into account the viewpoint or consultation with any NAB official.
