In the supreme court of Pakistan  
(Original Jurisdiction) 
 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Amir Hani Muslim 
Mr. Justice Qazi Faez Isa 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
 
Suo Moto Case No. 13 of 2016 
(Action against illegalities, contraventions 
and violations in appointments within NAB) 
 
AND 
 
Civil Misc. Application No. 5811 of 2016 
(Application for impleadment of Mirza Sultan 
M. Saleem and others) 
 
AND 
 
Civil Misc. Application No. 5887 of 2016 
(Application BY Syed Adil Gillani) 
 
AND 
 
Civil Misc. Application No. 6001 of 2016 
(Application of Sr. Shafiq-ur-Rehman S/o 
Sajawal Khan) 
 
AND 
 
Civil Misc. Application No. 6028 of 2016 
(Anonymous application regarding illegal 
appointments in NAB) 
 
AND 
 
Civil Misc. Application No. 6285 of 2016 
(Impleadment application by Asad Kharal) 
 
AND 
 
Civil Misc. Application No. 6907 of 2016 
(Application by Mirza Sultan M. Saleem) 
 
AND 
 
Civil Misc. Application No. 6980 of 2016 
(Impleadment Application by Dr. Shaista Nuzat) 
 
AND 
 
Civil Misc. Application No. 6984 of 2016 
(Impleadment Application by Yasir Ali) 
 
AND 
SMC.13/2016 
2 
 
Civil Misc. Application No. 7093 of 2016 
(Application by Muhammad Arshad Saeed) 
 
AND 
 
Civil Misc. Application No. 7363 of 2016 
(Application of Haji Muhammad Tariq Aziz Khokhar) 
 
AND 
 
Civil Petition No. 630-K of 2015 
(Abdul Hadi Vs. NAB and others) 
 
AND 
 
Civil Petition No. 65-Q of 2015 
(Mirza Luqman Masud and 
others Vs. Chairman NAB and 
others) 
 
AND 
 
Civil Misc. Application No. 1249 of 2017 
(Report by Joint Secretary (D & L), on behalf 
of Establishment Division) 
 
In Attendance: 
 
On Court Notice 
: 
Syed Tahir Shahbaz, Secretary, 
 
Establishment Division. 
 
For the Federation 
 
: 
Ch. Amir Rehman, Addl. Attorney General. 
 
For the NAB  
 
: 
Khawaja Haris Ahmed, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Waqas Qadeer Dar, PG, NAB. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Qamar Zaman, Chairman NAB 
 
For Ms. Aliya Rasheed 
: 
Hafiz S. A. Rehman, Sr. ASC.  
 
 
 
 
 
(in CMA. 7192/16) 
 
For Maj. (R) Shehzad Saleem :  
Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Sr. ASC 
and Maj. (R) Shiraz Naeem 
 
For Brig.(R) Farooq Nasir 
: 
Mr. Ahmed Awais, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For Maj (R) Shabir Ahmed  : 
Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, ASC 
and for Syed M. Husnain 
 
Mr. Rashid Javid Lodhi, ASC. 
 
For Ziaullah Toru 
 
: 
Khawaja Azhar Rashid, ASC. 
For Zahir Shah 
 
: 
Dr. Muhammad Ali Saif, ASC. 
 
For Adnan Shehzad Asghar, : 
Raja Imran Aziz, ASC. 
Yasir Mehmood, Muhammad  
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch., AOR. 
Fahad Khan, Karim Bux and 
Harmoon Bhatti  
 
 
SMC.13/2016 
3 
In CMAs.5811 & 6907/16 
: 
Mr. Abdur Rehman Siddiqui, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ahmed Nawaz Ch., AOR. 
 
In CMA.5887/16 
 
: 
Mr. Hashmat Ali Habib, ASC 
 
In CMA.6001/16 
 
: 
Shafiq-ur-Rehman, In-person. 
 
In CMA 6285/16 
 
: 
Asad Kharal, In-person. 
 
In CMA.6980/16 
 
: 
Sardar Muhammad Aslam, ASC.  
 
 
 
 
 
Dr. Shaista Nuzat, In-person 
In CMA.6984/16 
 
: 
Nemo. 
 
In CMA.7093/16 
 
: 
Nemo. 
 
In CMA.7363/16 
 
: 
Mr. Aftab Alam Yasir, ASC.  
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. 
 
In CP No.65-Q/2015  
: 
Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Sr. ASC.  
Mr. Zahoor-ul-Haq Chishti, ASC.  
 
In CP No.630-K/2015  
: 
Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, ASC.  
 
In Attendance 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Raja Saif-ur-Rehman, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Umer Riaz, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Riaz H. Rahi, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Kamran Murtaza, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mir Aurangzaib, AOR/ASC.   
  
 
Dates of Hearing  
 
: 
27th, 28th and 29th March, 2017. 
  
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
Amir Hani Muslim, J.  These Suo Moto proceedings were initiated under Article 
184 (3) of the Constitution of Pakistan on an anonymous application/letter 
wherein it was alleged that illegalities, contraventions and violations were 
committed/made in the appointments made in the National Accountability Bureau 
(“NAB”). It was, inter alia averred that NAB, which was the apex anti-corruption 
body of the country, had never come under legal scrutiny and the judgments of 
this Court reported as Contempt Proceedings Against Chief Secretary Sindh (2013 
SCMR 1752) and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch vs. The Province of Sindh (2015 
SCMR 456) were not followed to stream-line the service structure within NAB. It 
was further stated that there were a number of officers who lacked the eligibility 
criteria prescribed in the rules made pursuant to the National Accountability 
SMC.13/2016 
4 
Ordinance, 1999 (“the NAB Ordinance”) were still working in NAB in different 
capacities.  The said rules, which have been made pursuant to the NAB 
Ordinance, are the “National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Employees Terms 
and Conditions of Service (TCS), 2002” (“the TCS”). Pursuant to the TCS Rules 
the methods of appointment and qualifications were prescribed in the “National 
Accountability Bureau (NAB) Methods of Appointment and Qualification 
(MAQ)” (“the MAQ”). After registering the said application / letter as a Suo 
Moto Case under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, notices were issued to the 
learned Attorney General for Pakistan and the Chairman NAB. When this case 
was fixed on 23.09.2016, it was observed by this Court as under: 
“2. 
We have gone through the concise statement filed by the NAB 
and have noticed that appointments made in the NAB are, prima facie, 
violative of the principles enunciated by this Cout in the cases reported 
as Contempt Proceedings Against Chief Secretary, Sindh and others 
(2013 SCMR 1752) and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch vs. Province of Sindh 
and others (2015 SCMR 456). The NAB has taken the stance that these 
judgments do not apply to their employees on the ground that they are 
not civil servants. This stance is completely in conflict with the 
observations made by this Court in para 121 of the judgment Ali Azhar 
Khan Baloch (supra) where this Court has held that the principles laid 
down in aforesaid judgments would be applicable to the civil servants, 
Government servants and all other employees serving in different 
statutory organizations which are working under the administrative 
control of the Government.”  
 
2. 
 
Notice of the proceedings as contemplated under Order XXVII-A 
CPC was also given to the learned Attorney General for Pakistan vide order dated 
24.10.2016. Furthermore, NAB was required to file service profile of the officers 
whose appointments were challenged through different CMAs, inter alia, on the 
ground of legal infirmities in their appointments. In compliance with this 
direction, NAB filed a report (CMA No.8114/2016) setting out the infirmities in 
the appointments made in NAB, but as this Court was not satisfied with the report 
it was decided to take up the case of all the officers / officials named in the said 
report and decide their fate on merits in accordance with law. Notices were issued 
SMC.13/2016 
5 
to all the concerned officers / officials vide order dated 7.12.2016. Thereafter, on 
12.01.2017, this Court observed as under: 
 
 “We have heard the learned Counsel for the NAB and have perused the 
report submitted by the committee on the issue of appointments made in 
the NAB. We are not satisfied with the report. The stance of the NAB 
that a committee comprising senior officers of the NAB and the 
Establishment Division was constituted to scan the appointments made 
in the NAB, is also incorrect, as the report submitted by the NAB 
reflects that the representative of the Establishment Division has not 
signed it.  
 
2. 
With the consent of the learned Counsel for the NAB and the 
Counsel representing the parties present in Court, we direct the 
Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, to 
scrutinize as to whether all the appointments / promotions / absorptions 
/ deputations and appointments on contract basis made in the NAB 
since 2002 till date are in conformity with the National Accountability 
Bureau (NAB) Employees Terms and Conditions of Service (TCS) 
2002, and National Accountability Bureau Methods of Appointment 
and Qualification (MAQ) 2002 (amended from time to time) and 
whether 
the 
officers 
who 
were 
appointed/promoted/absorbed/ 
appointed 
on 
deputation 
or 
on 
contract 
basis 
hold 
the 
qualification/relevant experience in the required field and these 
appointments were in conformity with the principles laid down by this 
Court in the cases of Contempt Proceedings against Chief Secretary, 
Sindh (2013 SCMR 1752) and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch vs Province of 
Sindh (2015 SCMR 456). A detailed report against each appointment / 
promotion / absorption / deputation made in BS-16 to BS-22 in the 
NAB shall be submitted by the Secretary. The Secretary, Establishment 
Division, may summon the original service profile of the officers of the 
NAB which shall be provided to him immediately without delay. The 
Chairman, NAB, and all his subordinates shall extend full co-operation 
to the Secretary, Establishment Division, in this exercise, which shall 
be completed within 04 weeks from the date of communication of this 
Order.  
 
3. 
A copy of the report submitted by the NAB shall also be 
provided to the Secretary, Establishment Division, for his perusal 
which may be of some assistance to him in completion of the task. Copy 
of this order shall be faxed immediately to the Chairman, NAB, the 
Secretary, Establishment Division and Attorney General for Pakistan 
for their information and compliance.”  
 
3. 
 
Thereafter, when this case was fixed on 22.03.2017, it was 
observed by this Court as under:  
SMC.13/2016 
6 
“….According to the Secretary, Establishment nine officers lacked 
inherent qualification for appointment to the post. In addition with 
regard to the issue of promotion where, according the Secretary, 
Establishment, there are many inconsistencies. The Secretary, 
Establishment has not given his own opinion as to whether these 
officers qualified to be retained in the office or not. Kh. Haris Ahmed, 
learned Sr. ASC is put on notice to go through the report and make 
statement as to whether the discrepancies in the appointments / 
promotions are correct and whether in particular the nine officers 
pointed out by the Secretary, Establishment had the requisite 
qualification on the date of their appointment and, if they did not 
whether such officers were entitled to subsequent promotions. He states 
that he will examine the report of the Secretary, Establishment with 
regard to the inherent disqualification of nine officers, the promotion 
that were given and whether the appointments by promotion or 
absorption were inconformity with the principles laid down by this 
Court in the judgments reported as: Contempt Proceedings against 
Chief Secretary, Sindh (2013 SCMR 1752) Ali Azhar Khan Baloch Vs. 
Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456) and Ch. Muhammad Akram Vs. 
Registrar, Islamabad High Court (PLD 2016 SC 961). Kh. Muhammad 
Haris, learned Sr. ASC will file a report which will cover all material 
aspects as pointed out by Secretary Establishment…” 
Following the above mentioned directions, NAB submitted its response, through 
CMA 1748 of 2017, which states that to the extent of some of the officers they 
agree with the report of the Secretary Establishment. 
4. 
 
Khawaja Harris Ahmed, Senior ASC appeared as Counsel for the 
NAB and made a statement on behalf of NAB and the Chairman NAB, stating 
that the list of nine officers who were found to have inherent disqualifications in 
their appointments according to the report of the Secretary Establishment can be 
divided into two sets of officers. The first set of officers comprises of three 
officers with regard to whom NAB has no dispute with the findings of the 
Secretary Establishment that they did not meet the stipulated qualification and 
were inherently disqualified. The second set comprises of six officers whose 
induction in NAB according to his understanding is protected by a ‘deeming 
clause’ which is sub-rule (2) of Rule 14.03 of TCS. This ‘deeming clause’, 
according to him, provides that officers who have been inducted in NAB under 
Rule 14.03 of the TCS will be deemed to be ‘transfer employees’ for all purposes 
SMC.13/2016 
7 
under the TCS and the requirements of TCS will not apply to them . He further 
contends that Rule 3.30 of TCS would not be attracted in the case of induction of 
these employees who were already serving in NAB. In an attempt to explain his 
interpretation of the deeming clause in sub-rule (2) of Rule 14.03 of TCS, he 
stated that the last line of the said sub-rule provides that those inducted in NAB 
through Rule 14.03 shall be deemed to be appointments by transfer “for all 
purpose of the TCS”. By virtue of this phrase, he states, that the relevant rules 
applicable to appointment by transfer in part IV of the TCS titled ‘Appointment 
by Transfer’ which prescribe that three elements need only to be fulfilled, which 
are that the appointment must be in the public interest (Rule 3.28 of TCS), only 
regular incumbents be considered (Rule 3.29 of TCS) and employees possess 
qualifications required for initial appointment to the relevant post (Rule 3.30 of 
TCS). These elements, he contends, are presumed to have been fulfilled by an 
inductee by operation of the deeming clause. In this regard he has referred to the 
case of Munir Hussain Bhatti vs.  Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 407).       
5. 
 
The learned Senior ASC next contends that there are three main 
categories of appointments mentioned in the report of the Secretary Establishment 
Division wherein inconsistencies were found in the mode of appointment; i.e. (i) 
appointment by initial appointment (ii) appointment by induction and (iii) 
appointment by promotion. Regarding the first category, in which employees 
were inducted through initial appointment, he states that there were 629 
appointments made in NAB, out of which in 101 appointments inconsistencies 
were found in the report of the Secretary Establishment and NAB agrees that 
there were inconsistencies in 48 appointments and states the concerned officers 
will be de-notified. He further stated that apart from these, there are twelve (12) 
officers who are no longer in the service of NAB and that NAB does not agree 
with inconsistencies found in the appointments of the remaining 39 officers. 
6. 
 
With regard to the second category, where appointments were 
made by promotion, the learned counsel states that the said report reflects that 561 
SMC.13/2016 
8 
appointments were made by promotion within NAB out of which inconsistencies 
were found in only 133 appointments and out of these 35 officers have retired. He 
submitted that NAB agrees with the findings of inconsistencies in 102 of these 
appointments except four officers who were pointed out in Annexure IV of the 
said report, namely: (1) Khalid Mehmood, (2) Ansar Yaqub, (3) Saleem Chandio 
and (4) Afshan Basharat. Regarding these four officers he states that their 
appointments were governed by Rule 14.02 of the TCS. He states that Khalid 
Mehmood was appointed on deputation basis in NAB from the Accounts and 
Works Department Punjab in the year 2007. He states that Khalid Mehmood and 
Ansar Yaqub were promoted on the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal and 
since there is no provision in the TCS that provides for the fate of appointments 
by promotion given by a Service Tribunal’s decision, Rule 14.08 of the TCS 
applies to their appointments which provides that “in matters not covered under 
the TCS the employees of NAB shall be governed by the rules applicable to the 
other civil servants and the instructions issued from time to time by the Federal 
Government on such subject”. He further contends that the third officer namely 
Saleem Chandio was given a conditional promotion on the recommendations of 
the DPC and his case too is, therefore, distinguished and attracts special treatment 
on this ground. As regards the fourth officer Afshan Basharat she was given 
conditional promotion on the ground that her senior was resigning and thereafter 
she was promoted when the resignation of her senior was finalized and contends 
that Rule 3.24 of TCS applies to her appointment by promotion.     
7. 
 
Khawaja Haris Ahmed, learned ASC then contends that in the third 
category of appointment, which was by induction, there were 32 officers who 
were inducted in NAB pursuant to Rule 14.03 of the TCS. He submitted that 
proviso (i) of paragraph 2 of the MAQ specifically addressed the treatment of 
officers who had been working in NAB on transfer / deputation basis for the past 
one year prior to the promulgation of the MAQ. The proviso states that vacancies 
will be reserved for such employees against the posts equal to those already held 
SMC.13/2016 
9 
by them on regular basis in their parent departments in terms of Rules 14.02 and 
14.03 of the TCS. He further submits that out of these 32 officers only 15 are still 
in service while the rest have retired. Out of these remaining 15 officers, six (6) 
officers have been cleared by the Secretary Establishment in his report. He 
contends that one of these nine (9) officers is Aliya Rasheed and NAB agrees with 
the findings of the report of the Secretary Establishment in her case. He, however, 
states that she has been retained in NAB on the basis of judgments of this Court in 
her favour. A judgment of this Court passed in CP No.1632/2011 decided on 
2.12.2011 wherein this Court observed that her appointment, future promotion or 
career shall not be affected in any manner and the second judgment of this Court 
in HRC No.1305-G/2009 wherein it was observed by this Court that she should 
not be discriminated against with regard to her promotion. 
8. 
 
The learned counsel further contends that another officer, S. M. 
Hasnain, did not complete the one year period of service in NAB as per proviso 
(i) of para 2 of MAQ before his induction. With regards to his induction Khawaja 
Haris Ahmed submits that a lenient view may be taken as he was short of the 
requisite experience by only a few months. Regarding the remaining seven 7 
officers, he contends that NAB agrees that the required qualifications were not 
met by these officers, however, these officers do not need to comply with the said 
requirements as proviso (i) of para 2 of MAQ read with Rule 14.03 of TCS 
governs their induction. He submits that sub-rule (2) of Rule 14.03 contains a 
deeming clause whereby employees inducted from the Federal Government, other 
than those from the Armed Forces, could exercise a one time option for their 
absorption and would be deemed to have been appointed on transfer under the 
TCS, subject to the consent of the competent authority of their parent department 
and the approval of the appointing authority in NAB. 
9. 
 
Khawaja Haris Ahmed, ASC learned counsel further argued that 
apart from these nine officers, there was one more officer, namely, Zia Ullah 
Khan Toru who is currently serving as Deputy Director (BS-20) in NAB. This 
SMC.13/2016 
10 
officer was continuing on the basis of a judgment in his favour from the Peshawar 
High Court. This judgment was appealed before this Court but the petition was 
dismissed therefore, Zia Ullah was appointed in NAB without an advertisement, 
and without meeting the requisite academic qualification criteria. 
10. 
 
Mr. Waqas Qadeer Dar, the Prosecutor General (“PG”) NAB, 
stated that in the MAQ the qualifications required for appointment, in the 
Schedule under ‘Academic Qualification’ also includes “any qualification 
approved by the competent authority”. He contends that the said word “any” is of 
wide import and would include any qualification. In this regard he referred to the 
case of Inamur Rehman Vs. Federation of Pakistan (1992 SCMR 563) and 
regarding interpretation of word “qualification” he referred to the case of Noor-
Ul-Ameen Vs. Muhammad Abdul Qayum Khan (1991 MLD 2658). 
11. 
 
Malik Muhammad Qayyum, learned Sr.ASC, appeared on behalf 
of Major (R) Shiraz Naeem, who is currently serving in the NAB as Director on 
“Own Pay Scale” (OPS). The learned Senior ASC contends that Major (R) Shiraz 
Naeem was previously serving in the Pakistan Army and was sent on deputation 
to NAB. Thereafter, he served in NAB on deputation from 1999 till the year 2003 
after which he retired from the Pakistan Army and was inducted in the NAB 
under the TCS. He pointed out that Major (R) Shiraz Naeem possessed the 
required academic qualifications since he had a Masters Degree in Computer 
Sciences and therefore, he did not have any inherent disqualification. He also 
submits that the report of the Secretary Establishment had no adverse findings 
against his appointment. Malik Muhammad Qayyum, learned Sr. ASC also 
appeared on behalf of Maj. (Retd) Shehzad Saleem and contended that at the time 
of his induction in NAB he fulfilled all the codal formalities, therefore, his 
induction was in accordance with the law / rules.  
12. 
 
Mr. Ahmed Awais, learned ASC, appeared on behalf of Brig. (R) 
Farooq Naseer Awan and contends that the applicant was directly appointed as 
SMC.13/2016 
11 
Director General (BS-21) in NAB in the year 2013 and fulfilled the requisite 
academic qualifications prescribed in the MAQ since he had a B.Sc. degree as 
well as M.Sc. degree. With regard to his mode of appointment, he contended that 
307 candidates had applied for the said post in February 2013 and he was duly 
selected. Despite there being no irregularity in his appointment he contends that 
his case falls in the list of 48 officers regarding whose appointment NAB agrees 
with Secretary Establishment’s report that inconsistencies existed.    
13. 
 
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned ASC, appeared on behalf of Aliya 
Rasheed in CMA No. 7192 of 2016. He contends that Aliya Rasheed was 
appointed in NAB on 26.06.2003 pursuant to a directive by the then Prime 
Minister on account of her being an exceptional tennis star who represented the 
country in various international tennis tournaments. He contended that she had 
never been involved with or assigned any investigation related matter throughout 
her service in NAB and was only involved in raising awareness against 
corruption. He next contended that her appointment was not made under the TCS 
or MAQ but was made pursuant to the said policy of the Prime Minister. He 
concedes that no other sportsperson was appointed in NAB pursuant to this 
policy. He next contends that she has been retained in NAB on the ground of 
judgments of this Court in her favour, passed in CP No.1632/2011 decided on 
2.12.2011 wherein this Court observed that her appointment, future promotion or 
career shall not be affected in any manner and the second judgment of this Court 
in HRC No.1305-G/2009 wherein it was observed that she should not be 
discriminated against with regard to her promotion.      
14. 
 
Mr. Shoaib Shaheen, learned ASC, appeared on behalf of the 
applicants namely, Major (R) Shabbir Ahmed and S.M. Hasnain. He contends that 
both of the applicants were appointed in NAB pursuant to Rules 14.02 and 14.03 
of the TCS. He also contends that although Major (R) Shabbir Ahmed did not 
initially have the required qualifications for the post of Deputy Director (BS-20) 
on 30.09.2003 when he was absorbed in NAB, he had later acquired a LLB 
SMC.13/2016 
12 
degree in the year 2005 and then a MBA degree in the year 2010. He submits that 
a recent judgment of this Court in the case of DCO/ Chairman District 
Recruitment Committee Khanewal Vs. Kishwar Sultana (Civil Appeal No. 843 to 
863 of 2012 etc) supports the proposition that where a person lacks the 
qualifications required for initial appointment to a post, he may acquire the 
required qualification later to cure the defect. With respect to the case of the 
applicant S.M Hasnain, he contends that the said officer did not complete the one 
year period of service in NAB as per proviso (i) of para 2 of MAQ before his 
induction, however he had four years of experience in the Anti-Corruption 
Establishment. He also referred to Rule 14.01 of the TCS whereby the Chairman 
if he is satisfied may relax any provision or condition. 
15. 
 
Dr. Shaista Nuzhat who was previously employed in NAB and is 
now serving in the Establishment Division in BS-19, appeared in CMA 
No.6980/2016 and submitted that she only wanted to place some facts on record 
regarding the appointment of Ms. Aliya Rasheed. She contended that Ms. Aliya 
Rasheed was initially a project employee in the Ministry of Education, remained 
on contract basis in the said Ministry and was never appointed on regular basis. 
Thereafter, she was appointed in NAB in BS-18 on contract basis and was 
inducted after two months in BS-19. She further contended that Prime Minister 
had twice turned down the summary for her appointment but she was appointed in 
NAB in violation of the law / rules.  
16. 
 
Maj. (Retd) Syed Burhan Ali, appears in person and contends that 
he is presently posted as Director General NAB, Lahore (BS-20). While giving 
details of the process of his induction in NAB, he contends that he was a serving 
Major in Pakistan Army and was appointed on deputation to NAB as Deputy 
Director (B-18) in the year 2000, following which his induction took place on 
30.9.2003. He next contends that he was holding a B.Sc. degree at the time of his 
induction and his case fell in the category of those officers who possessed “any 
qualification approved by the competent authority” as stipulated in the 
SMC.13/2016 
13 
qualification requirement for the post of Deputy Director (BS-18) under the 
“Academic Qualification” in the Schedule to MAQ, therefore, the qualifications 
which were relevant for other officers were not attracted in his case.  He also 
refers to Rule 1.02 (b) of the TCS, submitting that his case falls within the ambit 
of those officers on deputation who were excluded from the application of the 
TCS even though after induction he was no longer a deputationist. 
17. 
 
Maj. (Retd) Tariq Mehmood Malik, Director General NAB, 
Balochistan, appeared in person and contended that his case was similar to that of 
Maj. (Retd) Syed Burhan Ali. He contends that he was holding a B.Sc. degree at 
the time of his induction and his case fell in the category of those officers who 
possessed “any qualification approved by the competent authority”, therefore, the 
academic qualification which were relevant for other officers were not attracted in 
his case.  He also referred to Rule 1.02 (b) of the TCS, submitting that his case 
falls within the ambit of those officers who were on deputation and had been 
excluded from the application of the TCS even though after induction he was no 
longer a deputationist. 
18. 
 
Chairman NAB, appeared in Court and was confronted with his 
opinion about those officers who did not have the requisite academic 
qualifications for their appointment and are serving in NAB, and why these 
officers had not been de-notified as yet. In response to this he stated that he 
agreed that the qualification/criteria prescribed in the TCS and the MAQ cannot 
be compromised, therefore, the officers who lacked the required qualifications at 
the time of their appointments, should indeed be de-notified. 
19. 
 
On 28.03.2017 the Chairman NAB submitted that with regard to 
the nine officers who were found to have inherent disqualification in their 
appointments in the Secretary Establishment’s report, two Directors namely 
Muhammad Younas and Capt. (Retd) Farrukh Naseem Akhtar have opted for 
voluntary retirement, whereas, two other officers, namely, Col. (Retd) Naeem and 
SMC.13/2016 
14 
Sq. Ldr. (Retd) Tariq Nadeem serving as DG and Director respectively have 
retired. He further submits that two officers, namely, Syed Muhammad Amir 
(Additional Director) and Ansar Yaqub (Deputy Director) have opted for 
repatriation to their parent departments. He stated that Ms. Aliya Rasheed, who 
was not amongst these nine officers, was offered voluntary retirement but chose 
not to opt for the same and contest her case on merits.  He next states that the 
issue now remains only with regards to three officers, namely, Maj. (Retd) Syed 
Burhan Ali, Maj. (Retd) Tariq Mahmood Malik and Maj. (Retd) Shabbir Ahmed.  
20. 
 
When this matter was fixed on 28.03.2017, the following order 
was passed by this Court:  
“We asked the Chairman, NAB to respond to the option which this 
Court had extended to the nine officers against whom the report 
submitted by the Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of 
Pakistan and which was concurred by NAB that the said nine officers 
did not meet the stipulated criteria prescribed for appointment.  
 
2. 
The Chairman, NAB states that two of these officers have 
retired, namely, Col. Naeem, Director General NAB, Karachi and 
Tariq Nadeem, Director NAB, Lahore.  
 
3. 
Chairman NAB further states that Mr. Muhammad Younas, 
Director NAB, and Mr. Farrukh Naseem Akhtar, Director NAB have 
opted to avail pre-mature retirement. Therefore, these two officers 
shall submit pre-mature retirement applications to the Chairman, NAB 
which should be processed in accordance with rules and accepted. It is 
clarified that these two officers would be entitled to all the pensionary 
benefits and perks that would be due to them upon such retirement.  
 
4. 
With regard to Syed Muhammad Amir, Additional Director 
NAB, Quetta and Ansar Yaqoob, Deputy Director NAB, Lahore, the 
Chairman, NAB states that they have sought to be repatriated to their 
respective parent departments. Let such applications be made to the 
Chairman, NAB, who in turn shall relieve these officers by repatriating 
them to their respective parent departments. Their lien, if it had been 
terminated shall stand revived and they would be entitled to the same 
benefit of salary and seniority as per their batch-mates, and if their 
batch-mates have been promoted, they shall also be entitled to 
promotion in their parent departments. The parent departments shall 
complete this exercise from the date they receive the order of 
repatriation/relieving by the Chairman, NAB.  
SMC.13/2016 
15 
5. 
As regards the remaining three officers, namely, Maj. (R) Syed 
Burhan Ali, who is posted as Director General NAB, Lahore, Maj. (R) 
Tariq Muhammad, who is working as Director General NAB, 
Balochistan and Maj. (R) Shabbir Ahmed, Director NAB holding acting 
charge of Director General, NAB Karachi, the matter is adjourned for 
tomorrow. i.e. 29.03.2016. In the meantime, Chairman NAB shall get 
in touch with Secretary Establishment Division, Government of 
Pakistan” 
 
 
21. 
 
Through the NAB Ordinance, NAB was created with the purpose 
to eradicate corrupt practices and hold accountable persons who had indulged in 
corrupt practices. The object, as mentioned in its Preamble was to provide 
effective measures for the detection, investigation and prosecution of those 
involved in corruption and corrupt practices or who had misused or abused their 
powers. The apparent objective was not to target petty criminals but those who 
had indulged in massive corruption or where there had been major misuse or 
abuse of powers. NAB also had the mandate to proceed against white collar 
criminals who may not be easily detected by the provincial police or the Anti-
Corruption Establishments in view of the subterfuge with which such persons 
operate or in view of the difficulty associated with unearthing such crimes. The 
very mandate of NAB means that the different positions in NAB are filled by 
persons possessing certain minimal academic qualifications and experience as 
stipulated in the Schedule to MAQ. Similarly, stringent conditions for promotion 
were mentioned in the TCS and MAQ. We were dismayed with the contents of 
the report submitted by the neutral and very senior bureaucrat, the Secretary 
Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan. Whereas, NAB acknowledges 
many of the shortcomings and discrepancies in the appointments, inductions and 
promotions it had a different viewpoint with regard to certain others.  
 
22. 
 
The learned counsel representing officers in NAB as well as 
Khawaja Haris Ahmed, learned senior ASC, representing NAB have tried to 
justify as to why the stipulated academic qualification or the prescribed 
experience was not met by a person appointed and/or promoted. A number of 
SMC.13/2016 
16 
untenable arguments in this regard were put forward which have been mentioned 
hereinabove. In this regard reference was made to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14.03 of 
TCS and much stress was placed on the word “deemed” appearing therein. 
Another argument that was put forward was that appointments made by transfer, 
as attended to in Part VI of the TCS, had their own methodology and that the 
appointments made pursuant to these provisions would not require to meet the 
criteria specified in MAQ. The learned PG, NAB put forward another novel 
contention which was that under the title “Academic Qualification” which 
mentions specific qualifications that appointments could also be made if the 
appointee had “any qualification approved by the competent authority”. Messrs 
Malik Muhammad Qayyum, learned Senior ASC, Ahmed Awais, learned ASC 
and Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, learned ASC, stated that if a person had 
subsequently acquired the required academic qualification he cannot be removed 
or de-notified on the ground that he did not have the stipulated academic 
qualification. It was also stated that the Chairman, NAB has the power to relax 
any provision, condition or requirement. The individuals who represented 
themselves advanced similar arguments. Hafiz S. A. Rehman, learned Senior ASC 
canvassed another extra-ordinary viewpoint which was that if an appointment was 
made, pursuant to a policy issued by the Prime Minister that supported or 
encouraged sportspersons, the stipulated qualification and experience would not 
be relevant. 
 
23. 
 
Though an attempt has been made to make this matter 
complicated, it is basically very simple. The MAQ and the TCS prescribed the 
requisite academic qualification and experience, inter alia, that a person who is 
appointed must possess at the time of his appointment. To appreciate the 
respective contentions, it would be appropriate to reproduce certain provisions of 
the TCS: 
“1.02. 
Commencement 
and 
Application. 
These 
terms 
and 
conditions of service (TCS) shall come into force at once and shall 
apply to all employees of the National Accountability Bureau other 
than: 
 
SMC.13/2016 
17 
(b) 
 a person who is serving on deputation from the Federal or the 
Provincial Government or from a corporation, statutory body or Local 
Fund or an autonomous body etc;” 
 
“3.30. 
Possessing Qualifications for Initial Appointments. Only an 
employee possessing the qualifications and other conditions laid down 
for initial appointment to the post on which appointment by transfer is 
being made, shall be considered by the Selection Board or the 
Departmental Selection Committee, as the case may be, for 
appointment by transfer.”  
 
“14.01. Just and Equitable Treatment in Hardship Cases. 
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these TCS in 
relation to the terms and conditions of service of an employee, the 
Chairman may, if he is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, 
that strict application of any provision or, condition causes hardship in 
any case, by order, relax this requirement to such extent as it may deem 
fit, for ensuring just and equitable treatment to the employee concerned 
without infringing the right of any other employee.” 
 
“14.02. Appointments made Prior to Coming Into Force These 
TCS. On commencement of these TCS, all appointments made either 
by initial recruitment or promotion or transfer other than of those 
employees who were posted on deputation or employee or contract 
before coming into force of these TCS, shall be deemed to have been 
made on regular basis, subject to fulfillment of conditions of eligibility 
prescribed in the Methods of Appointment and Qualification, (MAQ) 
for 
each 
post, 
recommendation 
of 
appropriate 
Selection 
Board/Committee as well as approval of the appointing authority.”  
 
“14.03. Induction of Employees of other Services.  (1) A person 
belonging to the Federal Government including the Armed Forces of 
Pakistan or a Provincial Government or a Corporation or body set up or 
controlled by any such Government and serving on deputation in the 
NAB may opt for permanent absorption in the NAB against the post 
equal to or identical with the post held on regular basis by him, under 
such Government, Corporation or body. 
 
(2) 
The option for absorption once exercised shall be final and 
subject to the consent of the competent authority of such employee in 
the parent department and approval of the appointing authority in the 
NAB, his appointment in the NAB shall be deemed as appointment on 
transfer for all purposes under these TCS.” 
 
 
24. 
 
Clause (b) of Rule 1.02 of the TCS is restricted only to such 
persons who are “serving on deputation” in NAB, and this Rule has no application 
if a person wants to be permanently absorbed in NAB. Rule 14.03 of TCS does 
not stipulate that, those who opt for permanent absorption in NAB are not 
required to have the academic qualifications and experience provided in the 
MAQ. Neither the MAQ nor any rule of the TCS mentions that the qualifications 
prescribed in MAQ would not apply to such persons. Therefore, the prescribed 
qualifications are applicable. This would also apply to the appointments made on 
transfer basis. 
25. 
 
With regard to the induction of an employee from any other 
service and the argument that he “shall be deemed as appointment on transfer” 
SMC.13/2016 
18 
and therefore would only be required to comply with Rules 3.28, 3.29 and 3.30 of 
TCS is not supported by the TCS. Rule 3.30 clearly stipulates that, “only an 
employee possessing the qualifications and other conditions laid down for initial 
appointment to the post on which appointment by transfer is being made shall be 
considered…”. Therefore, if a person is to be inducted in NAB from another 
service he must have the requisite qualifications, and if he did not have them he 
cannot be appointed. As regards the other limb of the argument that induction is 
“deemed as appointment on transfer” is also of no consequence as Rule 14.03 
does not state that the inductee from another service is exempt from having the 
prescribed academic qualifications and other eligibility criteria. The persons who 
were so inducted in NAB were already advantageously placed as they did not 
have to compete with others in a competitive process, therefore, to project them as 
victims is wholly inappropriate. 
 
26. 
 
As regards the learned PG’s contention that, under the title 
“Academic Qualification” in the Schedule to MAQ, the competent authority can 
substitute the stipulated academic qualifications by “any qualification” this 
contention has no application in these cases, since the competent authority had not 
exercised such powers nor had substituted the stipulated academic qualifications 
with any other qualification. Therefore, we need not speculate as to the kind of 
alternative qualifications which could have been approved by the competent 
authority. We may, however, observe that if the competent authority elects to 
substitute the stipulated academic qualification it could only be to ensure that 
certain skills which accompany a particular academic qualification were required. 
The alternative attempt by the learned PG, to read the words “any qualification” 
on their own, is precluded by the fact that these words are followed by the 
following words- “approved by the competent authority”. 
 
27. 
The contention that a person can obtain the requisite qualifications 
subsequently, that is after he had already joined the service of NAB is 
unsustainable. If this concept or principle is accepted it would render meaningless 
SMC.13/2016 
19 
the stipulated qualification for a particular job. Though reference has been made 
to an unreported judgment mentioned in paragraph 14 (above) but that judgment 
is based on altogether different facts and circumstances. In that case the Skill 
Development Council constituted under the National Training Ordinance, 1980 
had embarked upon issuing diplomas and certificates which it was not entitled to 
do and this Court held, that “persons employed on the basis of the same may 
continue in service” provided they also “possess the requisite or relevant 
qualifications”, and as regards “those who could not improve their qualification 
should improve it within a period of one year…”. An untenable situation was 
created by the Government itself as it had stipulated that those who possess 
certificates/diplomas from the Skill Development Council could apply. This 
judgment is given on its own the peculiar facts and circumstances and does not 
lay down any principle of law in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution. 
Moreover, in the present case NAB did not issue any notification that it would 
also accept any other degree/diploma/certificate, consequently, the said judgment 
has no relevance to the facts of this case. 
 
28. 
 
As regards the argument that, the Chairman, NAB possesses the 
power to relax any provision or condition under Rule 14.01 of the TCS and in 
making the appointments he is presumed to have done so, is negated by the said 
Rule itself. The Chairman’s power to relax is circumscribed in terms of Rule 
14.01 itself. To begin with this Rule is premised on the fact that the person 
affected by any particular provision or condition is already an employee of NAB, 
which was not so in the present case, as deputationists in NAB are not employees 
of NAB. This Rule does not apply to those who are being appointed or inducted in 
NAB. In addition the Chairman, NAB can only exercise his powers to relax rules 
only to the extent that a particular provision or condition “causes hardship” and 
provided it is “just and equitable”. All these factors have to be attended to by the 
Chairman, NAB “in writing”. Moreover, nothing has been brought on the record 
to show that the Chairman, NAB had actually exercised such powers. If a person 
SMC.13/2016 
20 
does not have the requisite academic qualification it cannot be construed to “cause 
hardship”, therefore, the question of providing “just and equitable treatment” in 
terms of Rule 14.01 would not arise. Besides the aforesaid reasons, we are of the 
considered view that the Chairman, NAB did not have the authority to relax the 
rules by compromising eligibility and academic qualifications. In this regard, we 
are fortified by the judgment of this Court in the case of Muhammad Akram v. 
Registrar, Islamabad High Court (PLD 2016 SC 961). Consequently, we are clear 
that Rule 14.01 of the TCS is not attracted.  
 
29. 
As regards pressing into service the “policy” issued by the Prime Minister 
to support and encourage sportspersons with regard to Ms. Aliya Rasheed, the 
referred to “policy” is reproduced hereunder: 
“In order to promote sports at grass root level and inculcate 
discipline amongst the masses for national integration and 
cohesion, the Prime Minister has been pleased to direct that 
the sportsmen of International/National level may be 
provided jobs in Government Departments and large 
organizations like PIA, WAPDA, Police, Railways and 
other Federal/Provincial Departments/Autonomous Bodies, 
through a proper selection procedure. For this purpose 
Departments/Organizations 
concerned 
should 
make 
necessary provision in their service rules. 
 
2. 
M/o MCST&YA will monitor the progress of 
implementation of this directive and submit monthly 
progress report for information of the Prime Minister.” 
 
Supporting the said appointment on the basis of this “policy” is not 
sustainable on a number of grounds. Firstly, the NAB Ordinance, the TCS and 
MAQ do not vest the Prime Minister with any authority to issue such a policy. 
Secondly, pursuant to the purported policy neither the MAQ or the TCS were 
amended. Thirdly, the appointment was made without advertising the post or 
inviting equally placed persons to participate. Simply issuing such “policy” 
without any further action thereon cannot substitute the provisions of the NAB 
Ordinance, the TCS and/or the MAQ.  
 
SMC.13/2016 
21 
30. 
 
It is, therefore, quite clear that none of the arguments and 
contentions that were advanced could justify the appointments, inductions or 
transfers mentioned hereinabove. 
 
 
31. 
 
We accordingly hold and direct that: 
I. 
 The initial appointments of 05 officers namely Muhammad Fahad Khan, 
Yasir Mehmood, Karim Bux, Harmoon Bhatti, and Adnan Shehzad Asghar, 
whose names have been mentioned at page 86 of C.M.A.No.1748 of 2017, have 
been found to be inconsistent with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB 
Employees Terms and Conditions of Service) (TCS), 2002. The learned counsel 
for these officers, stated that one of these officer, namely, Adnan Shehzad Asghar 
may be allowed to be repatriated to his parent department, i.e. the National Bank 
of Pakistan. In these circumstances and to avoid any hardship, we direct the 
Chairman, NAB, to immediately repatriate Adnan Shehzad Asghar to his parent 
department, i.e. the National Bank of Pakistan, and the Bank, in turn, shall allow 
him to join. He shall be given seniority and promotion alongwith his batch mates 
as if he was never repatriated. Termination of lien will not come in the way of the 
aforesaid officer. According to the learned Counsel the remaining four officers 
named hereinabove had not produced equivalence certificate from the Higher 
Education Commission (HEC) and be given an opportunity to do so. We therefore 
grant time to these officers to submit equivalence certificates after obtaining them 
from the HEC in respect of their degrees/certificates within four weeks from 
today. In case they fail to produce the requisite equivalence certificates, their 
services shall be terminated forthwith under intimation to this Court through the 
Registrar.   
II. 
On the issue of requisite experience in the initial appointments in the 
NAB, the Secretary, Establishment Division, had noticed 96 officers who lacked 
the requisite experience and he suggested, with the consent of the Chairman, 
NAB, that a committee be formed to examine the issue. The list of these officers 
was placed separately by the Secretary, Establishment Division, which was taken 
SMC.13/2016 
22 
on record. We agree with this suggestion and constitute such Committee, which 
shall be headed by Syed Tahir Shahbaz, Secretary, Establishment Division, who 
shall be its Chairman and its Members shall be Mr. Muhammad Shakeel Malik, 
Director General (H.R), NAB and one Member of the Federal Public Service 
Commission to be nominated by the Chairman, FPSC. The Chairman, FPSC, shall 
notify the Member for the purpose of joining the Committee within one week 
from today. 
III. 
The Chairman NAB/Competent Authority shall issue notices to all these 
officers to appear before this Committee. The Committee after affording them an 
opportunity of a hearing, shall record its findings within two months and the 
findings shall be acted upon by NAB.  
IV. 
With regard to the appointments by promotion the Secretary, 
Establishment Division, found 137 promotions made in NAB to be inconsistent 
with the TCS and or MAQ and the NAB authorities concur with him. The 
Chairman, NAB, informs that out of these 137 officers 35 have retired. We direct 
that the remaining officers shall be issued show cause notices to appear before the 
Committee referred to hereinabove.  The Committee shall afford these officers an 
opportunity of a hearing and decide their cases within two months from the date 
they appear before the Committee. The findings shall be acted upon forthwith by 
the NAB. The Committee and the Chairman, NAB, shall submit compliance 
reports in respect of both the aforesaid issues for our perusal in Chambers, within 
15 days of the recording of findings by the Committee. 
32. 
 
As regards the officers namely Maj (R) Syed Burhan Ali, Maj (R) 
Tariq Muhammad, Maj (R) Shabbbir Ahmed and Ms. Aliya Rasheed, they were 
not qualified to hold the respective posts in NAB.  They shall therefore be de-
notified immediately. It will, however, be open for these officers to exercise the 
option of proceeding on retirement within four days from today, and if such 
option is exercised it shall be accepted by NAB. They shall be entitled to all the 
pensionary benefits to which they are entitled to under the law/rules. However, in 
case they fail to exercise the option of retirement, their services shall be 
SMC.13/2016 
23 
terminated after expiry of four days. It will be open to these officers to apply for 
the posts advertised by the NAB in future and they shall be entitled to appear in 
the examinations to be conducted by FPSC provided they meet the eligibility 
criteria and compete with the other candidates. The Chairman, NAB, shall submit 
compliance report in this regard within seven (7) days for our perusal.  
33. 
 
We expect that all the existing vacancies in NAB or that may be 
pursuant to the Committee’s findings in future shall be filled within three months 
through the Federal Public Service Commission, from the date, the proposed 
Committee finally submits its report for our perusal. In the intervening period, 
NAB shall requisition its existing vacancies to the FPSC, which shall take steps 
for filling up the same. We are aware that the recruitment rules of NAB exclude 
recruitment through the FPSC, but in the larger public interest, the FPSC shall 
undertake this exercise and the posts shall be filled in by observing the mandate of 
Articles 240 and 241 of the Constitution, as these posts are extremely sensitive 
and only the most qualified candidates should be appointed. The Chairman, NAB, 
shall submit compliance report in the matter.” 
34. 
 
These proceedings alongwith all the listed Applications are 
disposed of in the above terms. The connected Civil Petitions No. 630-K of 2015 
and 65-Q of 2015 are de-tagged and should be fixed for hearing before an 
appropriate Bench. Office is directed to send copies of this judgment to the 
Chairman, Federal Public Service Commission, Islamabad, the Secretary 
Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and Chairman, 
National Accountability Bureau for information and compliance. The time periods 
mentioned above shall commence from the date of receipt of the judgment by the 
aforesaid.  
 
Judge 
  
Judge 
  
Judge 
Bench-III  
Islamabad: 
31.03.2017 
Approved for Reporting  
(Sohail)