1999 P Cr (PLP)

Karachi Airport, Karachi. (b) Second letter "Subject Request for Mr. Omar Razzaq for appointment in P.I.A. in Grout/ X or IX and in ODDC Group VIII. Reference is invited to this Secretariat's original Communication No.54/S/PoI.Secy./PM/94, dated 18-1-1994 and subsequent letter, dated 26-11-1994 on the subject noted above. The case of the appointment of Mr. Omar Razzaq was approved by the Prime Minister on 16-1-1994 and has been delayed for a very long time. It is requested that the matter may kindly be looked into personally and appointment of Mr. Omar Razzaq expedited. Action taken in the matter be intimated to undersigned. (Sd.) Naheed Khan, Political Secretary to the Prime Minister 12-12-1994. P.S.O. to P.M." (c) Third letter Prime Minister's Secretariat (Public), Islamabad No. l /G/Pol. /Secy/PM/94 6-12-1994 Subject Application for the post of time-keeper P/G III or Flight steward P. G, IV. Copy of enclosed application from Mr. Manzoor Ahmed (resident of Khairpur Mirs bearing recommendations of Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, M.N.A. and Provincial Minister for Communications and Works refers. Progress of the case may please be intimated to this office. . (Sd.) Naheed Khan, Political Secretary to the Prime Minister Director (Adorn.) P.I.A., Karachi. In the first letter the applicant has recommended one Mir Muhammad Abbasi working in the P.I.A. Duty Free Shop to be transferred from there to the P.I.A. in equivalent post according to his performance and qualification. There is a suggestion in such letter that he may be also taken on deputation in the P.I.A. Furthermore, such letter categorically directs the Managing Director to look into this recommendation on priority basis. The applicant admits the writing of this letter. The employments in the P.I.A. Duty Free Shop and the P.I.A. are distinct. It is not a case where an inter-departmental transfer was recommended. Even had it been so, the Political Secretary of the Prime Minister had no lawful authority to recommend, order or direct inter-departmental transfers, let alone transfers or appointments on deputation or otherwise from one employment scheme to another. Prima facie, a bare reading of this letter alone does not leave the impression that the applicant had not been instrumental in finding placement for Mir Muhammad Ahbasi in the P. I. A. The second letter is an internal correspondence between the applicant and the Personal Staff Officer of the then Prime Minister. The Personal Staff Officer has in turn forwarded this letter to the P.I.A. or took up the matter with .the P.I.A., as the case may be. In this letter although the applicant has under scored the fact that the appointment of one Omar Razzaq in P.I.A.. has been approved by the then Prime Minister, however, she on her own accord has requested the matter to be expedited and looked into personally. Prima facie it cannot be said that the applicant in writing this letter has only communicated the orders of a superior authority for which she cannot be blamed (see State v. Abdullah Shah 1998 MLD 216 for this principle of law). It is personal Staff Officer who could have taken this plea had he been charged. The third letter, however, gives an impression that the orders of the Prime Minister have only been communicated for which the applicant cannot be blamed. At this stage it cannot be said that even if the entire case as pitched by the prosecution against the applicant were believed, no case shall be made out against her. Prima facie, the first two letters as discussed above do not leave the impression as invited by the counsel for the applicant. At this stage these letters, admitted to have been written by the applicant, are still to be brought in evidence and the key prosecution witnesses, in particular, Ghazanfar Mashkoor and Lieutenant Colonel Basit Ali are yet to be examined and cross-examined. These witnesses in their statements before the Investigation Officer have also implicated the applicant for abetting the illegal appointments with other accused persons, at least on the basis of the two letters discussed above. In light of the above discussion the listed application is dismissed as premature. Before parting, it is needless to point out that the discussion as above only reflects a tentative view and shall have no bearing on the trial or subsequent applications, if any. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S-170/K Application dismissed.