ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Mian Saqib Nisar Friday said during hearing of a case pertaining to appointment of former managing director (MD) of Pakistan Television (PTV) Attaul Haq Qasmi that he should return Rs270 million if he wants to close the case.
A three-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar heard the case. Issuing notices to the respondents including former information minister Senator Pervaiz Rashid and principal secretary to prime minister Fawad Hasan Fawad, the chief justice said that the summary that was moved for appointment of Attaul Haq Qasmi as well as his appointment order should also be submitted before the court on next hearing on Tuesday.
Ayesha Hamid, counsel of Attaul Haq Qasmi, submitted her objections to the audit report on the expenditures of the state-run TV. She said that the salary of the former Chairman was fixed by the PTV Board and that he did not commit anything wrong.
The chief justice said the appointment process of Attaul Haq Qasmi was not in accordance with rules. He said Rs270 million has been spent on the former PTV MD. He said the case can be dismissed if he returns the money. He said the returned money would be kept in the fund for construction of new dams.— Agencies
Our correspondent adds: Attaul Haq Qasmi has claimed that he was never involved in either approval of the expenditure in regard to renovations, programmes and advertisement of the state-owned TV or in the manner the approved amounts were spent.
According to former head of state-run TV’s reply which he had submitted before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the conclusions drawn by the auditor in his report are at the best an opinion of the auditor which cannot be relied upon as evidence against the applicant until tested in a competent court of civil jurisdiction. In fact, the auditor is himself so much conscious of the limitations of the report that in his forwarding letter dated 02.04.2018 he requests that the report not be distributed to any other party.
“It is the duty of the Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly (see Rule 203 of the National Assembly Rules of Procedure 2007) to examine the accounts and incomes and expenditure of all the state corporations (including the state-run TV) and the audit reports of the Auditor-General. It is for the Public Accounts Committee to finally determine/decide what amount, if any, is recoverable from the applicant, or any other person, on the basis of these accounts and reports. This august court may not assume/oust the jurisdiction conferred in all such matters on the National Assembly and its Public Accounts Committee”, says the former MD.
Mr Qasmi in his reply said the applicant is not a public office holder. He resigned as the state-run TV’s board chairman on 13.12.2017. His resignation was accepted on 20.12.2017. He is a private citizen. If perchance any amount is recoverable from him during his tenure as state-run TV chairman from 23.12.2015 to 20.12.2017, this is not a matter of public importance, with reference to enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Chapter-1 of Part-2 of the Constitution, which requires the exercise of this august court’s constitutional jurisdiction under Article 184(3).
“The basic issue before this august court in the titled Human Rights case (3654 of 2018) was/is the appointment of the Managing Director of the state-run TV corporation. It is for this august court to decide whether the non-appointment of the managing director by the federal government for a prolonged period of time is a matter of public importance and violative of fundamental rights and therefore requires passing of an appropriate order under Article 184(3). It is repeated with respect that the question whether any recovery is to be made from the applicant during his stint as state-run TV board chairman is incidental to the aforesaid Human Rights case and not a matter of public importance/fundamental rights requiring exercise of this august court’s jurisdiction under Article 184(3)”, says Mr Qasmi in his reply.
“The question whether or not any amount is to be recovered from the applicant and, if so, on which account and how much, are disputed questions of fact which can only be determined in appropriate civil court proceedings. It is submitted with respect that any order passed by this august court under Article 184(3) would be violative of applicant’s fundamental rights to due process guaranteed to him by Article 10-A of the Constitution.
According to Mr Qasmi, it is evident from a bare perusal of the auditor’s report that any number of state-run TV personnel were associated in preparation of the said report but the applicant was not associated or called upon to explain even one of the acts, expenditure, etc. attributed to him. The applicant has self-evidently been condemned unheard in the preparation of the report and its findings and deprived of due process guaranteed as a fundamental right per Article 10-A of the Constitution.
The limitations confessed to by the auditor, including the fact that he did not associate the applicant at all in the preparation of the report, establishes that the conclusions drawn by the auditor in his report are at the best an opinion of the auditor which cannot be relied upon as evidence against the applicant until tested in a competent court of civil jurisdiction.
“The applicant was not the sanctioning authority for any expenditure in connection with his person or in relation to any expenditure on renovations, state-run TV programmes, state-run TV advertisements, etc. In regard to his person he was paid or was reimbursed salary and allowances as per federal government notification dated 29.02.2016 and as approved for all chairmen of state-run TV, whether full-time or ex-officio, by the state-run TV Board of Directors at its 119th meeting on 17.02.2000. A few of the authorised/approved expenditure were directly settled by state-run TV in accordance with its accounting procedures and approvals given by its officers including successive managing directors. In regard to renovations, its programs, its advertisements, etc. the applicant was not involved in either the approvals of expenditure in these matters or in the manner the approved amounts were spent. The applicant did not interfere in any financial or accounting procedures of the state-run TV. If there was any violation of procedures, etc, in these matters the applicant cannot be held liable for the same”, says Mr Qasmi said in his reply.
Mr Qasmi in his reply said that the state-run TV Board of Directors confirmed the applicant’s appointment as chairman/director of its Board at its 211th meeting held on 02.01.2016. Prima facie this confirmation satisfies the requirement of Rule 4(4) of the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013. The auditor has erred in stating that the 2013 Rules do not entitle the chairman to draw salary. Rule 19(3) of the 2013 Rules specifically permits payment of remuneration to non-executive directors. The power to approve such remuneration is available to the shareholders of public sector companies. In case of the applicant the salary package was decided by the sole shareholder viz the federal government vide notification dated 29.02.2016.
“In regard to domestic travel the auditor has noted that the applicant was paid travel and daily allowance as per state-run TV Rules and not as per the notification dated 29.02.2016. Had the applicant been paid as per the notification dated 29.02.2016 he would have drawn Rs4,800 per day instead of Rs2,970 (Rs3,069 after July 2017) actually paid to him (see para 2.7.3 of the report). As per facilities approved at the 119th meeting of state-run TV’s Board of Directors held on 17.02.2000 the applicant was entitled to club class air travel and hotel stay at paneled hotels. Para 2.7.11 of the auditor’s report confirms that the applicant claimed DA, etc for official visits only.
“In regard to entertainment expenditure the auditor has objected to payment of Rs154,3153 for Islamabad Club membership. This was specifically approved by the then Managing Director S M Gardezi (see para 2.9.4 of the report). It is reiterated that the facility of no limit entertainment expenses (inside and outside office) was approved for all chairmen by the state-run TV Board at its meeting on 17.02.2000. The auditor says he saw the payment vouchers and underlying documents and found no discrepancy. In regard to expenditure on vehicles determined by the auditor as Rs199,8913 (see para 2.10.9) the auditor has objected to the allocation of two official vehicles instead of one. The auditor has also objected to fuel expenses, etc incurred on the personal vehicle of the applicant. The approval in regard to fuel expenses of the personal vehicle was given by the then Managing Director S M Gardezi because it was used by the applicant for official travel”, says Mr Qasmi.
As regards refreshment/food expenses incurred at Lahore office (Rs207,052) the auditor has objected that the applicant was not entitled to entertainment expenses incurred at Lahore office. However, the factual position is that at its 119th meeting held on 17.02.2000 the state-run TV Board approved no limit entertainment expenses for its chairman whether inside or outside office and therefore the auditor’s objection is invalid.
