SHC denies bail to ex-education secretary, section officer

The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Monday dismissed bail petitions filed by former education secretary and a section officer in illegal appointments reference.

Petitioners Noor Mohammad Leghari and Dr Kishore Kumar were booked by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in a reference pertaining to misuse of their authority as the education and secretary section officer in education department respectively along with other co-accused to appoint 294 people illegally against various posts in the special education wing in 2012-13 through illegal process containing only walk-in-interviews in violation of the settled law, causing a loss of Rs250 million to the national exchequer.

NAB alleged that Leghari, being the education secretary, in connivance with the co-accused made direct appointments against various posts in the special education department without a due process. Later, in order to draw a veil over his illegality, he constituted a backdated recruitment committee and got offer letters issued to such appointed persons.

The federal anti-graft watchdog accused Dr Kumar of abetting Leghari in the offence and issuing offer letters to 294 appointees without verifying validity or authenticity of the process.

A counsel for the former education secretary submitted that NAB did not issue any warrant of arrest against Leghari during the investigation of the case but upon dismissal of his petition for pre-arrest bail on February 26, 2021, he was arrested by NAB and sent to judicial custody.

He submitted that the arrest warrant under the Section 24 (a) issued later on November 25, 2020 by the NAB chairman after filing of the reference was unlawful. He submitted that the NAB chairman had the authority to issue arrest warrant only during inquiry or investigation.

The lawyer argued that after filing of a reference, the NAB chairman could issue such a direction only under the Section 24 (c) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, but only when there was a chance of absconding as it had been held by a larger bench of the court.

He submitted that even if the impugned warrant of arrest was deemed to have been issued under the Section 24 (c), it still was not warranted because there was no evidence that the petitioner wanted to abscond and avoid the trial.

He submitted that since no grounds existed to justify the custody of the accused in jail, the warrant of arrest was illegal, and incarceration of the petitioner unsustainable and he may be granted bail.

A counsel for Dr Kumar submitted that he had been falsely implicated in the case at the time of initiation of appointment process by then secretary Mohammad Ali Shah. He submitted that the petitioner joined the education department on a deputation basis much after the appointments and as the section officer, he had issued offer letters to comply with the direction of the secretary, Leghari, who had forwarded a list of 294 candidates duly signed by him for such a purpose.

A NAB special prosecutor and investigation officer opposed relief to the petitioners contending that there was sufficient evidence against them. He submitted that the issuance of warrant of arrest against Leghari was recommended by the investigation officer much prior to filing of the reference and its actual issuance after the reference is nothing but a mere technicality.

A division bench of the SHC comprising Justice Mohammad Iqbal Kalhoro and Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi, after hearing the arguments, observed that there was an apparent bizarreness in the list of candidates and there was no record to support even their candidacy but instead of getting alarmed and playing his part with due caution expected of a public officer in such circumstances, the co-accused Dr. Kumar went ahead and issued the offer orders.

The bench observed that being a section officer, the co-accused was responsible for its proper working and maintenance of record in addition to disposing of the case of his section in the light of precedents which required his attentive diligence towards his duty and not being blindsided by a letter from his superior.

The SHC observed that the petitioner’s stance that he had no option but to issue offer letters to obey order of his secretary was shorn of legal value.

The high court observed that prima facie sufficient evidence and reasonable grounds were found against the former secretary to believe his involvement in the alleged offense.

The bench observed that the former secretary was the relevant secretary when the offence was committed as he forwarded a list of 294 persons with his signature, replacing the original ones who had appeared in the test to the section officer for issuing offer letters to them for appointment.

The SHC observed that such fact had been confirmed not only from the documents collected in the investigation but by some of the witnesses who were part of the committee which had conducted interviews of the original candidates.

The high court observed that the petitions merit no consideration and dismissed the same along with pending applications. The bench observed that the observations made in the judgment were tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party before the trial court.