SC challenge: Govt defends PSP postings in FIA

Says transfers do not block promotions in FIA


Hasnaat Mailk August 02, 2016
FIA HQ Islamabad. PHOTO: FILE

ISLAMABAD: The government has informed the Supreme Court that postings of Police Service of Pakistan (PSP) officers to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) do not affect the internal promotion process in the investigative agency.

Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali had taken suo motu notice on the transfer and posting of PSP officers in the FIA after its officers of different ranks filed an application, arguing that the authority was a specialised investigation agency dealing with technical/white collar crimes and requiring the services of experienced and trained officers to efficiently handle and deal with such crimes.

Workers welfare board: FIA seeks details of officers in corruption case

The Establishment Division submitted its reply in the apex court wherein it defended PSP appointments in the FIA. “PSP officers are posted against PSP posts only for a specific tenure borne on PSP cadre (BS-18 to BS-22). Hence, neither is this absorption/induction nor deputation of PSP officers in the FIA.”

The reply states that the transfer of PSP officers against PSP cadre posts in the FIA also does not block promotions of officers of the FIA, adding it is not a violation of any judgment of the apex court.

It also rejected the claim of permanent FIA employees that PSP officers have no expertise, adding that PSP officers get specialised training in the field of investigation.

Adoption of PECB: FIA unit faces existential threat

It appealed to the court that “debarring PSP officers from posting in the FIA would be contrary to the spirit of law” as well as it would adversely affect the “performance” of the organisation.

It is submitted that there are 43 sanctioned posts of PSP in the FIA wherein 16 are still vacant.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 2nd, 2016.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ