Bukhari quits over news report

By Ansar Abbasi

ISLAMABAD: Secretary Establishment Syed Tariq Ali Bukhari on Friday tendered his resignation to the prime minister citing The News story on Friday — “Dubious standing of the prime witness” — as the reason.

In his “Note for the Prime Minister”, surprisingly also faxed to media houses, Bukhari said, “I joined government service in 1970. For the last 37 years, I have served the government to the best of my capabilities with dignity, honour and without fear and favour. To uphold these principles, I have had to face pressures and make personal sacrifices. The reward and satisfaction has been the reputation that I have enjoyed in the government service. Regrettably, all this seems to have come to an end with the personal slender in a news item published in the daily ‘The News’ of today. Sir, the confirmation of your orders, regarding extension in my re-employment beyond two years was conveyed to the Establishment Division only after the FPSC had given their concurrence. The summary for this was initiated by the Establishment Division on 3rd March, 2007 and routed through Chairman FPSC.”

Bukhari’s note for the prime minister says: “Apart from the slender, the news item quotes ‘top mandarins in the Prime Minister’s Secretariat’ to have been surprised by extension in my re-employment. Under these circumstances, it is not possible for me to continue to discharge my responsibilities with a clear conscience, I would, therefore, request you to accept my resignation. The terms of my contract require one month’s notice or payment of one month’s salary in lieu thereof. I would request that my resignation be accepted with immediate effect. The one-month salary may be adjusted by not paying me for the 13 days of the month of April, 2007 that I have served already. As I do not have resources to make full payment for the remaining days, the balance amount may be deducted in easy instalments from my pension.”

The News Friday’s story said the prime government witness against the chief justice of Pakistan is a re-employed federal secretary who got unexpected but illegal extension just a week before the presidential reference was filed against the country’s top judge. If the word “slender” used by ED secretary in his resignation letter meant “slander”, then it is suffice to say that The News story did not contain any comment on Bukhari’s person or reputation.

Sources confirm that the secretary Establishment got third-year extension on March 3 through a formal notification issued by the Establishment Division (ED). The said notification was issued following verbal orders from the top. A formal summary for extension was initiated only after the extension was granted whereas the mandatory consultation with the FPSC was a follow-up affair instead of being the pre-requisite as required by the law.

On March 4, 2005 some of the newspapers including The News highlighted the fact that the ED secretary’s extension was a violation of the law and did not carry the mandatory consent of the FPSC. No denial or clarification was ever issued. Normally in cases where any extension in the contract is required, a summary is moved weeks before the expiry of the existing contract period.

Interestingly, within a fortnight before the secretary ED was granted 3rd years extension, it was the ED itself that had issued a circular to all the ministries and divisions asking them to fulfil the legal requirement of consulting the FPSC in contract appointments beyond two years. The ministries and divisions were asked by the ED that summary of cases, where any extension beyond two years is required, should be moved before the expiry of the existing contract of the concerned officer.

Even in case of a routine re-employment, the Estacode (the book of statutes, rules etc governing civil bureaucracy) sets extremely strict parameters for such appointments. These parameters are, however, rarely followed.

On page 1013, the Estacode says: “Re-employment after superannuation:- It has been noticed that ministries/divisions initiate proposals for re-employment of government servants after superannuation as a routine measure. It is emphasized that re-employment beyond superannuation should be an exception and not the rule. It may be recommended only on cases where government considers that the experience gained by the retiring person is of vital importance and can be gainfully utilised, particularly in fields where suitably qualified and experienced persons are not available.”

The Estacode says: “2. For achievement of the objectives above, the present government has framed a policy for re-employment of government servants and cases for re-employment would, in future, be considered in accordance with the following criteria:

(i) Non availability of suitably qualified or experienced officers to replace the retiring officers;

(ii) The officer is a highly competent person with distinction in his profession/field.

(iii) The re-employment does not cause a promotion block; and

(iv) Retention of the retiring officer, for a specified period, is in the public interest.

This policy would also apply to government controlled corporations and other autonomous bodies.”

According to the Estacode (page 1020) even the cabinet had decided not to give re-employments to retired officers as a routine. It says: “The cabinet in its meeting held on 12-11-1990 has decided that no re-employment beyond the age of superannuation should be allowed except in very exceptional cases for which approval of the Prime Minister would need to be obtained.”

The Estacode also emphasises that “the ministries/divisions are advised not to initiate cases of re-employment of civil servants beyond the age of superannuation unless that is considered unavoidable due to non-availability of his replacement and the importance and sensitivity of the job which must be clearly brought out while initiating any such proposal”.

It is also interesting to note that the secretary ED in his resignation said that he served government without any fear and favour. He added: “To up-hold these principles, I have had to face pressures and make personal sacrifices.”

However, in the presidential reference against the CJ, it is noted: “Due to relentless pressure and the campaign of intimidation and harassment launched by him (CJ), ultimately a summary was prepared and submitted by the Establishment Secretary on 23 June 2006 to the Prime Minister for addition of a new “Rule 7-C” in the Police Service of Pakistan (Composition, Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1985. The amendment was tailor-made for Dr Arsalan Iftikhar.”

http://www.cssforum.com.pk/central-s...html#post57750