Another show of defiance to SC verdicts

ISLAMABAD: In a show of complete disrespect to the Supreme Court’s latest directions and its warnings, issued to protect the tenure of civil servants, the federal government on Thursday removed Islamabad’s additional deputy commissioner, a female officer, just after one month after her posting.

Violating every bit of the SC’s order, the lady has been removed without assigning any reason in writing, without any knowledge of the Establishment Division and also made an OSD. It is a perfect case study of a brazen violation of the directions given by the SC just a fortnight back.

The lady officer, Maryam Khan, who enjoys a good reputation, has been removed to vacate her post for her two-year junior officer removed from the CDA by the recently inducted clean top management of the authority. Khan had joined the Islamabad administration as ADC(G) only last month and was brought to Islamabad from Faisalabad by the Establishment Division.

Only two days back, the Interior Ministry, in its written order issued to the Islamabad administration, had desired that the BS-18 lady officer should be posted as assistant commissioner — which is a BS-17 position — and in her place her two-year junior Farid Mustafa be made additional deputy commissioner.

The Islamabad chief commissioner did not demote her as assistant commissioner and also avoided making her serve under his junior, made her an OSD despite the fact that the lady officer was transferred as the ADC, Islamabad. The Establishment Division sources said that the division has not been taken into confidence over these changes whereas a source close to the chief commissioner, Islamabad, has confided to this correspondent that he was under pressure from the Interior Ministry to issue these controversial orders.

According to the Establishment Division official, the chief commissioner could make internal changes up to BS-18 officers, but others argue that an officer, posted as ADC by the ED, could not be removed by the chief commissioner.

It is clarified that Maryam Khan was not placed by the ED at the disposal of the Interior Ministry but was notified as ADC(G), Islamabad. In this situation, the validity of the chief commissioner’s order also becomes questionable.

In its judgment handed down only on November 12, the Supreme Court had provided the much-needed protection to the government servants from whimsical and arbitrary postings and transfers by directing the federal and provincial government that they must respect the tenure of an officer against a post and that no government servant should be prematurely transferred without giving reasons in writing.

The SC had ruled: “When the ordinary tenure for a posting has been specified in the law or rules made thereunder, such tenure must be respected and cannot be varied, except for compelling reasons, which should be recorded in writing and are judicially reviewable.”

The SC added that appointments, removals and promotions must be made in accordance with the law and the rules made thereunder; where no such law or rule exists and the matter has been left to discretion, such discretion must be exercised in a structured, transparent and reasonable manner and in the public interest.

However, despite these clear directions, the poor lady officer has been removed within weeks of her appointment and without doing any wrong. No reason even has been conveyed to her for removing her to vacate the post for her junior officer who, according to sources, does not match her reputation either.

The posting of Maryam Khan as an OSD also negates the following direction of the SC’s order: “Officers should not be posted as OSD except for compelling reasons, which must be recorded in writing and are judicially reviewable.”

The SC order had also noted that civil servants who act according to law, at times, have to face hardship in the form of immediate transfer or posting as Officers on Special Duty (OSD) even before the completion of their tenure. It was also noticed that frequent transfers, postings and disciplinary proceedings are taken in violation of the law, rules and regulations.

These administrative orders of the federal government also ignores the warning issued by the Supreme Court, which stated that the failure of a state functionary to apply a legal principle which is clearly and unambiguously attracted to a case, may expose him to proceedings also under Article 204(2)(a) of the Constitution. This article, it may be recalled, grants this Court the power to punish for contempt any person who “disobeys any order of the Court”.

The SC order also referred to an earlier judgment which had made it clear that responsibility for implementation of a court order has been made obligatory on other organs of the state, primarily the executive failing which empowers the court to punish him for contempt.

“If there still remains any doubt, let us clarify that those executive functionaries who continue to ignore the Constitution and the law do so at their own peril,” the SC warned. But as has been seen in the past, it seems the SC’s directions and its warnings in this case too have fallen on the deaf ears of the federal government authorities.

Posted in: Top Story