CM office responsible for Pakpattan DPO transfer: report
SC asks Buzdar and Kaleem to read the report and respond in three days
CM Punjab. PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
Punjab Chief Minister Usman Buzdar is in hot water as a new inquiry into a case of alleged interference in police affairs has concluded that the transfer order of Pakpattan’s former district police officer (DPO) Rizwan Gondal had 'flowed' from the Chief Minister Office.
“Orders of transferring Ex-DPO Pakpattan at an odd time on 27-08-2018 flowed from CM office and Ex-IGP [inspector general of police] only acted as a rubber stamp,” says a report submitted by the National Counter Terrorism Authority (Nacta) Coordinator Mehr Khaliq Lak in the apex court.
The new report completely contradicts former Punjab IGP Kaleem Imam’s report on the incident, which had ruled out possibility of any political interference by the CM in police affairs.
It, therefore, adds to the difficulties of the CM and former IGP as the three-member Supreme Court bench hearing the case has asked Buzdar and Imam to submit their responses to Lak’s report within three days. .
CJP comes down hard on Punjab CM
The bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar, has also hinted at passing a final order on the issue on Monday. The chief justice also asked Punjab advocate general to go through Article 62 (1) (f) of the Constitution, which deals with disqualification of a lawmaker.
The SC’s Justice Muneeb Akhtar while writing a verdict as a Sindh High Court (SHC) judge in Pervez Musharraf disqualification case held that if a public representative abuses power then he would not be deemed as Sadiq and Ameen. Another SC judge, Maqbool Baqir, give a similar verdict as a SHC judge.
The CJP also elaborated the issue of disqualification of parliamentarians in case of misuse of authority in Jahangir Tareen and Imran Khan disqualification cases. However, the SC has yet to disqualify any lawmaker on the basis of ‘misuse of authority’
Talking to The Express Tribune, a senior government official in Punjab said Lak is a biased officer as his name was put on the list sent for appointment of Punjab IGP but he was not considered. He wondered how Article 62 (1) (f) could be applied on such findings, which are based on presumptions.
The CM will submit objections to the report in this week.
The inquiry report submitted by Lak has questioned role of former IGP Imam by saying that he behaved as “more loyal than the king”. It says the IGP recommended suspension of the DPO and surrendering him to the federal government in a single go on September 5 on account of inefficiency and misconduct.
“Among others one of the main charges is that Gondal did not take timely action. I failed to understand that when the DPO had invited the aggrieved party the very next day to sort out the issue in both incidents and had even offered a meeting over a cup of tea at the DPO house but aggrieved party had refused to come then what type of probe or action was expected in the absence of the concerned party. Moreover, the inquiry officer had also recommended ‘reprimand’ to the extent of this charge “
The fresh report says ‘overdoing’ and ‘overstretching’ creates an impression that there was some pressure to teach the DPO a lesson or “he (Imam) behaved ‘more loyal than the king”.
It is also asked why Imam did not wait for outcome of an inquiry and hastily issued transfer order at 1am, which establishes that the pressure was from some other quarters.
The report also points out that Gondal’s summary regarding his transfer carried an overwriting and the word ‘verbal consent’ of the competent authority seemed to be inserted later on.
“Although the correction has been initiated by the officer but it raises doubts as to whether the original word was verbal consent or something else such as ‘verbal direction/ orders etc’. I do not challenge the intentions. It could be a mistake or an oversight but it certainly raises eyebrows,” says Lak in his report.
He says the call data confirmed that the personal secretary (PS) to the CM talked to the IGP at his residence number at 11:50 pm and then from IGP house a call was made to the DIG at 11:52 pm.
Top court summons Maneka, others in Pakpattan DPO transfer case
“Then calls between ex-DPO Pakpattan DIG headquarters and the RPO are also established. Moreover, the call data of August 27 also establishes that a call was made by the PSO to the CM to ex-DPO Pakpattan at 9am. Though content of talk is not known but the sequence and time of these calls support the contention of ex-DPO Pakpattan,” it adds.
The report says the former DPO is tight in his statement that Ahsan Jameel Gujjar persuaded him to visit Maneka family. Lak termed the Gujjar’s conversation with the DPO as derogatory, insulting and constituting misconduct.
However, he says, whether they constitute criminal intimidation is purely a legal debate, which should be taken up in the light of the opinion of legal experts. “I feel that he (Gujjar) was following up the case in the capacity of a self-proclaimed guardian of the (Maneka’s] children”
He said the question posed by the SC would not have arisen had there been no ‘private person’ in the meeting between the CM and the DPO on August 24 in the first place. “I think such an event was certainly objectionable and should not have happened,” he adds.
Punjab Chief Minister Usman Buzdar is in hot water as a new inquiry into a case of alleged interference in police affairs has concluded that the transfer order of Pakpattan’s former district police officer (DPO) Rizwan Gondal had 'flowed' from the Chief Minister Office.
“Orders of transferring Ex-DPO Pakpattan at an odd time on 27-08-2018 flowed from CM office and Ex-IGP [inspector general of police] only acted as a rubber stamp,” says a report submitted by the National Counter Terrorism Authority (Nacta) Coordinator Mehr Khaliq Lak in the apex court.
The new report completely contradicts former Punjab IGP Kaleem Imam’s report on the incident, which had ruled out possibility of any political interference by the CM in police affairs.
It, therefore, adds to the difficulties of the CM and former IGP as the three-member Supreme Court bench hearing the case has asked Buzdar and Imam to submit their responses to Lak’s report within three days. .
CJP comes down hard on Punjab CM
The bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar, has also hinted at passing a final order on the issue on Monday. The chief justice also asked Punjab advocate general to go through Article 62 (1) (f) of the Constitution, which deals with disqualification of a lawmaker.
The SC’s Justice Muneeb Akhtar while writing a verdict as a Sindh High Court (SHC) judge in Pervez Musharraf disqualification case held that if a public representative abuses power then he would not be deemed as Sadiq and Ameen. Another SC judge, Maqbool Baqir, give a similar verdict as a SHC judge.
The CJP also elaborated the issue of disqualification of parliamentarians in case of misuse of authority in Jahangir Tareen and Imran Khan disqualification cases. However, the SC has yet to disqualify any lawmaker on the basis of ‘misuse of authority’
Talking to The Express Tribune, a senior government official in Punjab said Lak is a biased officer as his name was put on the list sent for appointment of Punjab IGP but he was not considered. He wondered how Article 62 (1) (f) could be applied on such findings, which are based on presumptions.
The CM will submit objections to the report in this week.
The inquiry report submitted by Lak has questioned role of former IGP Imam by saying that he behaved as “more loyal than the king”. It says the IGP recommended suspension of the DPO and surrendering him to the federal government in a single go on September 5 on account of inefficiency and misconduct.
“Among others one of the main charges is that Gondal did not take timely action. I failed to understand that when the DPO had invited the aggrieved party the very next day to sort out the issue in both incidents and had even offered a meeting over a cup of tea at the DPO house but aggrieved party had refused to come then what type of probe or action was expected in the absence of the concerned party. Moreover, the inquiry officer had also recommended ‘reprimand’ to the extent of this charge “
The fresh report says ‘overdoing’ and ‘overstretching’ creates an impression that there was some pressure to teach the DPO a lesson or “he (Imam) behaved ‘more loyal than the king”.
It is also asked why Imam did not wait for outcome of an inquiry and hastily issued transfer order at 1am, which establishes that the pressure was from some other quarters.
The report also points out that Gondal’s summary regarding his transfer carried an overwriting and the word ‘verbal consent’ of the competent authority seemed to be inserted later on.
“Although the correction has been initiated by the officer but it raises doubts as to whether the original word was verbal consent or something else such as ‘verbal direction/ orders etc’. I do not challenge the intentions. It could be a mistake or an oversight but it certainly raises eyebrows,” says Lak in his report.
He says the call data confirmed that the personal secretary (PS) to the CM talked to the IGP at his residence number at 11:50 pm and then from IGP house a call was made to the DIG at 11:52 pm.
Top court summons Maneka, others in Pakpattan DPO transfer case
“Then calls between ex-DPO Pakpattan DIG headquarters and the RPO are also established. Moreover, the call data of August 27 also establishes that a call was made by the PSO to the CM to ex-DPO Pakpattan at 9am. Though content of talk is not known but the sequence and time of these calls support the contention of ex-DPO Pakpattan,” it adds.
The report says the former DPO is tight in his statement that Ahsan Jameel Gujjar persuaded him to visit Maneka family. Lak termed the Gujjar’s conversation with the DPO as derogatory, insulting and constituting misconduct.
However, he says, whether they constitute criminal intimidation is purely a legal debate, which should be taken up in the light of the opinion of legal experts. “I feel that he (Gujjar) was following up the case in the capacity of a self-proclaimed guardian of the (Maneka’s] children”
He said the question posed by the SC would not have arisen had there been no ‘private person’ in the meeting between the CM and the DPO on August 24 in the first place. “I think such an event was certainly objectionable and should not have happened,” he adds.