Tahir Shahbaz.
The federal government’s abrupt decision to replace the Capital Development Authority (CDA) chairman on its last day in office did not sit well with the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on Sunday took suo motu notice of the sudden transfer of Tahir Shahbaz, which appears to be in violation of a November 2012 Supreme Court order.
In its order, the apex court had restrained the government from transferring any officer prematurely without offering reasons in writing.
Shahbaz, a BPS-21 Pakistan Administrative Service officer who became CDA chairman in October last, was replaced by Tariq Mahmood Pirzada the Chief Commissioner of Islamabad on March 16.
Chief Justice Chaudhry fixed the matter in court for Monday. The court directed the cabinet and interior secretaries to appear before the court and provide notifications and summaries regarding the transfer of Shahbaz.
Notices were also issued to Shahbaz and Pirzada.
It is believed the chief justice took notice of the issue based on news reports that appeared following the change of the civic agency’s boss.
On Sunday, The Express Tribune quoted an official as saying that Shahbaz was “reluctant to approve the creation of additional residential plots in the layout plan of Sector I-8.”
Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf had approved the allotment of one-kanal residential plots to eight officers working at the Prime Minister’s secretariat, including his military secretary, but Shahbaz did not sign the deal.
The Supreme Court also considered Shahbaz’s transfer a prima facie violation of a 2012 judgment by Justice Jawad S Khawaja in a petition filed by Anita Turab for the protection of civil servants.
The summary of the 2012 judgment states, “When the ordinary tenure for a posting has been specified in the law or rules made there under, such tenure must be respected and cannot be varied, except for compelling reasons, which should be recorded in writing and are judicially reviewable.”
The summary also states that civil servants “are not bound to obey orders from superiors which are illegal or are not in accordance with accepted practices and rules...instead, in such situations, they must record their opinion and, if necessary, dissent.”
Published in The Express Tribune, March 18th, 2013.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ