RASHEED AHMAD versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
ections Sections 6 (2), 7 and 10 Pakistan Chairman of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (EM PEMRA) - - Disclosure of personal interest in appointment of Chairman, PEMRA to a public servant employed by a mismanagement - The Appellant recommended to appoint himself as PEMRA as the Secretary of Information and Broadcasting, the summary which was prepared for this purpose, he suggested three names and gave him credibility. But the author (appellant) did not specifically disclose his personal interest when the appellant chairman Emira had proposed his name for the post, and did not get him, like he was appointed as a violation of a rule, which after prior written permission. Before applying - the appellant committed misconduct because he violated Section 10 of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002 (\\\ t he ordinance \\\) to take over as the chairman of PEMRA. Continuing work in public employment - Appellant claimed that he had relinquished the charge of government before taking charge of Pimra's office, though his discharge from office did not end with his appointment to public employment. - Appellant's appointment, too, was a violation of SI No. 140 of Volume 1 of the East Code, listed in: The procedure for appointment of autonomous / semi-autonomous bodies under Komut prescribed Ordinance Section 6 (2) determines the competence of the Chairman, PEMRA, which is integrity media, business, administration, finance, economics or law. I
out of the public exchequer; that if government contends that none amongst its law officers were capable handling cases then the question would arise why had incompetent persons been appointed; that in such a scenario the public suffered twice, firstly, they had to pay for incompetent law officers, secondly, they had to pay again for the services of competent counsel the government engaged; that the public exchequer could not be squandered in such manner, and the State must protect its belongings and assets and those of citizens from waste and malversation; that the Constitution the Rules of Business, the Attorney-General for Pakistan (Terms and Conditions) Rules, 2011, the Central Law Officers Ordinance, 1970 and the Additional Attorney-General who did so on behalf of the governemnt disciplinary action in accordance with the applicable law-- appeal was dissmissed accordingly. [pp. 130, 132, 133] E, F & G
Muhammad Yasin v. 2015 SCMR 810; Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Registrar of Trade Unions 1997
Waseem Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmed
Advocate-on-Record (absent) for pp
Sohail Mehmood, D.A.G and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Sohail Mehmood, D.A.O. Syed
Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. an
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood Ahmed Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record fo P
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 6.
Date of hearing: 23rd January, 2017.
top civil advocates from Dijkot lawyer
