ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) reserved on Monday its order on a petition filed by Auditor General of Pakistan (AGP) Akhtar Buland Rana for the release of his salary.

The salary had been stopped by the Accountant General of Pakistan Revenue (AGPR) on the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the National Assembly.

The PAC had sent a reference of misconduct against the AGP to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).

Through his lawyer Saeed Khursheed, the petitioner contended that PAC’s special report about his excessive salary may be declared coram non judice and mala fide because there was constitutional bar under Articles 81and 82.

The petitioner pleaded that the controller general of accounts (CGA) and the AGPR may be restrained from making recovery of paid salary merely upon the unauthorised recommendation of PAC until the finding for the receipt of extra remuneration was given by the SJC which is the competent forum to determine the conduct of the petitioner under Article 209 of the Constitution.

The secretaries of the establishment and finance divisions, the CGA, the AGPR, the PAC chairman and the secretary of the National Assembly had been cited as respondents in the petition. The petitioner informed the court that it was his second petition on the issue.

An earlier writ and intra-court appeal were disposed of by the IHC with the observation that the petitioner may submit his grievance against stoppage of his salary before the SJC instead of filing a writ petition.

Eventually, he filed an application before the SJC for the release of his salary that was forthwith disposed of on March 25 this year.

Advocate Khursheed contended that the disciplinary proceedings against the misconduct of petitioner office could only be initiated by the SJC under Article 209 of the Constitution in the like manner as a judge of the Supreme Court. The post of AGP is a tenure post for four years and the petitioner is not in the administrative control of the executive.

He argued that under Articles 81 and 82 of the Constitution, the PAC was not the competent forum to conduct any inquiry about remuneration of the petitioner.

The petitioner requested the court to declare PAC’s recommendations as unlawful.

Published in Dawn, April 21st, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play