NAB chief doesn’t have authority to relax rules: SC

Top court bureau should provide effective measures for investigation of those involved in corruption

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has observed that NAB’s apparent objective was not to target petty criminals but those who had indulged in massive corruption or where there was major misuse or abuse of powers.

The court further held that the NAB chairman did not have the authority to relax rules by compromising eligibility and academic qualifications during the appointment process.

A three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by outgoing judge Justice Amir Hani Muslim, issued a detail judgment regarding illegal appointments within NAB.

Justice Hani, while authoring 23-page verdict, stated that the bureau was created with the purpose to eradicate corrupt practices and hold accountable persons who had indulged in corruption. “The object, as mentioned in its preamble was to provide effective measures for the detection, investigation and prosecution of those involved in corruption and corrupt practices or who had misused or abused their powers.”



The verdict says that NAB also had a mandate to proceed against white collar criminals who may not be easily detected by the provincial police or the Anti-Corruption Establishments in view of the subterfuge with which such persons operate or in view of the difficulty associated with unearthing such crimes.

The bench observed that the very mandate of NAB means that different positions in the bureau are filled by persons possessing certain minimal academic qualifications and experience as stipulated in the Schedule to Methods of Appointment and Qualification (MAQ).

Similarly, stringent conditions for promotion were mentioned in the Terms and Conditions of Service (TCS) and MAQ.

“We were dismayed with the contents of the report submitted by the neutral and very senior bureaucrat, the Secretary Establishment Division. Whereas, NAB acknowledges many of the shortcomings and discrepancies in the appointments, inductions and promotions it had a different viewpoint with regard to certain others.

In reply to the argument that NAB chairman possesses the power to relax any provision or condition under Rule 14.01 of the TCS and in making appointments, the court said that the chairman’s power to relax is circumscribed in terms of Rule14.01 itself.



“To begin with this rule is premised on the fact that the person affected by any particular provision or condition is already an employee of NAB, which was not so in the present case, as deputationists in NAB are not employees of the bureau. This rule does not apply to those who are being appointed or inducted in NAB.

In addition the NAB chairman can only exercise his powers to relax rules only to the extent that a particular provision or condition causes hardship and provided it is just and equitable. All these factors have to be attended to by the chairman in writing. Moreover, nothing has been brought on the record to show that NAB chairman had actually exercised such powers”.

The court said that if a person does not have the requisite academic qualification it cannot be construed to “cause hardship” therefore, the question of providing “just and equitable treatment” in terms of rule 14.01 did not arise.

Regarding the first category, in which employees were inducted through initial appointment, there were 629 appointments made in NAB, out of which inconsistencies were found in 101 appointments as per the report of the Secretary Establishment. NAB agrees that there were inconsistencies in 48 appointments and states the concerned officers will be de-notified.

Apart from these, there are 12 officers who are no longer in the service of NAB and that the bureau does not agree with inconsistencies found in the appointments of the remaining 39 officers.

With regard to the second category, where appointments were made by promotion, 561 appointments were made by promotion within NAB out of which inconsistencies were found in only 133 appointments and out of these 35 officers have retired.

The NAB agreed with the findings of inconsistencies in 102 of these appointments except four officers who were pointed out in Annexure IV of the said report, namely: (1) Khalid Mehmood, (2) Ansar Yaqub, (3) Saleem Chandio and (4) Afshan Basharat.