Political appointments

Accused-Federal Minister making political appointments in a Public Sector Corporation by forcing his will upon the Chairman of the Corporation

Accused relaxing rules of the Corporation to accommodate political appointees without specifying the need for such relaxation

Improper exercise of authority for a purpose not intended by the law

Political appointments in Public Sector Corporation made against the interest of the Corporation to appease Parliamentarians could not be approved

Collaboration between Ministers and legislators and the bureaucracy for political favours in the public sector destroyed merit, which weakened the State structure and promoted injustice in the society

Accountability Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the accused under S.3(1)(d) of the Ehtesab Ordinance, 1996 [since repealed] [read with section 35 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999] and disqualified him from contesting an election or holding a public office for a specified period in terms of S.15 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Supreme Court issued appropriate directions in such regard.

Federal/Provincial Ministers or a member of Parliament or Provincial Assembly, under the Federal and Provincial Rules and Business, had no direct role in such regard, and any interference by them in such matters would be unlawful and of no legal effect.

Temporary employees appointed in a Public Sector Corporation on the directions of accused Federal-Minister after relaxation of relevant service rules

Accused was convicted under Ehtesab Ordinance, 1996, [since repealed], which was not in force at the time of the alleged offence

Service rules/regulations of Corporation relaxed by the accused were not applicable to the temporary appointments made in the present case

Absence of actual or conscious knowledge on part of accused that temporary appointments or relaxation of rules was illegal

Conduct of accused in appointments was certainly reckless and irresponsible but not 'corrupt', 'dishonest' or 'illegal'

Neither financial loss to Corporation nor any illegal gratification/advantage received by the accused on account of temporary appointments was alleged

High Court had rightly acquitted the accused of the charge.