IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, HCJ 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
 
HUMAN RIGHTS CASE NO.3654 OF 2018 
(In the matter regarding appointment of Managing 
Director, Pakistan Television Corporation) 
 
 
In attendance: 
Mr. Khalid Jawed Khan, Attorney General for Pakistan 
Syed Nayyar Abbas Rizvi, Addl.A.G.P. 
(Assisted by Barrister Asad Rahim) 
Sardar Ahmed Nawaz Sukhera, Secy. M/o Information 
Mr. Tahir Khushnood, D.G. (IP) M/o Information 
Mr. Nasir Jamal, ex-D.G. (IP) M/o Information 
Mrs. Saba Mohsin, ex-Addl. Secy. Information 
Mr. Yousaf Naseem Khokhar, Secretary Interior 
Mr. Muhammad Azam, ex-Secretary Interior 
Mr. Abdul Hameed Anjum, Member FBR 
Dr. M. Iqbal, Member FBR 
Mr. Saleem Baig, Chairman PEMRA 
Dr. Waqar Masood, ex-Secretary Finance 
Mr. Fawad Hassan Fawad, ex-Secy. to P.M. 
Mr. Nadeem Hasan Asif, ex-Secy. Establishment 
Mrs. Ayesha Hamid, ASC 
(For Ata ul Haq Qasmi) 
Mr. Nazir Jawad, ASC  
Mr. Zahoor Barlas, DMD PTV 
(For PTV) 
Mr. Munawar Iqbal Duggal, ASC 
(For Pervaiz Rashid) 
 
Mr. Imran-ul-Haq, Special Prosecutor NAB 
Mr. Shariq A. Zaidi, Sr. Partner Ernest & Young 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
12.7.2018 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, CJ:- The issue in this case was 
highlighted during the course of hearing of another matter pertaining to 
Pakistan Television Corporation Limited (PTV) when it came to the Court’s 
notice that the Managing Director (MD) of PTV had not been appointed since 
the completion of the tenure of the last MD on 22.02.2016. The report 
sought from the learned Attorney General for Pakistan (AG) in this regard 
prima facie revealed that while the office of the MD of PTV remained vacant, 
that of the Chairman was occupied by Mr. Ata ul Haq Qasmi from 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 2 :-
23.12.2015 
to 
18.12.2017 
and 
during 
his 
tenure, 
a 
sum 
of 
Rs.284,163,733/- was paid to him and/or expense incurred by him or on 
his behalf. During the proceedings it also transpired that there were 
irregularities/illegalities in Mr. Qasmi’s appointment. Summaries were 
moved for relaxation of the upper age limit of 65 years for such 
appointment and for the approval of a handsome salary package of 
Rs.1,500,000/- in addition to other perks. Be that as it may, this Court 
directed a renowned audit firm, Ernst and Young Pakistan (the Auditor), to 
conduct an audit with regards to, inter alia, Mr. Qasmi’s salary, and the 
expenses incurred by him or on his behalf. The Auditor submitted a report 
(Audit Report – Volume I & II) to this Court. This case was conducted over many 
dates of hearing and arguments of the learned counsel for Mr. Qasmi, 
learned AG, and various Government officials (in person and through their learned 
counsel) were heard at length. Initially Mr. Fawad Hasan Fawad and Mr. 
Pervaiz Rashid stated that the learned Additional AG, Mr. Waqar Rana, 
would argue on their behalf, however subsequently Mr. Fawad opted to 
explain his position himself, while Mr. Pervaiz Rashid made submissions 
himself and through counsel.  
2. 
 
Before proceeding further we will deal with certain preliminary 
issues. Though not specifically raised during the course of hearing, we 
consider it appropriate to mention that this Court has jurisdiction in this 
matter under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973 (the Constitution). It came to the Court’s notice that blatant 
irregularities/illegalities (details of which are highlighted in this opinion) existed 
involving Mr. Qasmi’s appointment as a Director and the Chairman of PTV 
and the fixation of his terms and conditions (including a handsome salary package 
along with perks/benefits/allowances). It was apparent from the face of the record 
that there was nepotism and misuse of authority regarding Mr. Qasmi’s 
appointment as Director/MD PTV. Therefore it was well within the powers 
of this Court to determine the validity of such appointment and fixation of 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 3 :-
salary etc. The question then arises whether PTV, a public sector company, 
is a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the 
Federation. The test in this regard was laid down by this Court in the case 
of Salahuddin Vs. Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery (PLD 1975 SC 244) 
which was relied upon in the case reported as Abdul Wahab and others 
Vs. HBL and others (2013 SCMR 1383) in which this Court, while holding 
that Habib Bank Limited was a private entity, observed that:- 
 
“…in order to bring the Bank within the purview and the 
connotation(s) of a ‘person’ and ‘authority’ appearing in 
Articles 199, 199(5) and 199(1)(c) of the Constitution and 
also for the purposes of urging that appropriate order, in the 
nature of a writ can be issued independently by this Court 
under Article 184(3) (Constitution), to the Bank, the learned 
counsel for the petitioners has strenuously relied upon the 
‘function test’…In this context, it may be held that for the 
purposes of resorting to the ‘function test’, two important 
factors are the most relevant i.e. the extent of financial 
interest of the State/Federation in an institution and the 
dominance in the controlling affairs thereof…”  
[Emphasis supplied] 
 
Considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are of the 
opinion that PTV, the national broadcaster, fully satisfies the test in that it 
is substantially under the control of the Federal Government. PTV is a 
public limited company with the Federal Government holding the entire 
paid up share capital of Rs.1529.3 million. Thus the Government has a 
major financial interest in PTV. Moreover, as per the notification dated 
23.12.2015 issued by the Ministry of Information, Broadcasting & National 
Heritage (MOIBNH) (reproduced below in paragraph 4 of the opinion), majority of the 
Directors (six out of eight), i.e. (i) Mr. Qasmi (Federal Government nominee); (ii) 
Additional Secretary, MOIBNH; (iii) Additional Secretary (Admn), Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs; (iv) Additional Secretary (B), Ministry of Finance; (v) 
Director 
General, 
ISPR; 
and 
(vi) 
Managing 
Director, 
PTV, 
are 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 4 :-
representatives of the Federal Government which constitute the Board of 
Directors. Therefore the Federal Government completely controls the affairs 
of PTV. In light of the above, PTV satisfies the definition of Public Sector 
Company provided in Rule 2(1)(g) of the Public Sector Companies 
(Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013 (Rules of 2013) (reproduced hereinbelow) and 
thus the control of PTV vests in a substantial manner in the hands of the 
Federal Government:- 
 
2. Definitions.- (1)(g) “Public Sector Company” means a 
company, whether public or private, which is directly or 
indirectly controlled, beneficially owned or not less than fifty 
percent of the voting securities or voting power of which are 
held by the Government or any instrumentality or agency of 
the Government or a statutory body, or in respect of which the 
Government or any instrumentality or agency of the 
Government or a statutory body, has otherwise power to elect, 
nominate or appoint majority of its directors, and includes a 
public sector association not for profit licensed under section 
42 of the Ordinance.  
 
In light of the foregoing, PTV is a person performing State functions and 
therefore the validity of appointment of its Director and Chairman, Mr. 
Qasmi, can be examined, particularly considering the seemingly arbitrary 
manner in which he was appointed, despite being overage to hold such an 
important office. He was given an immensely generous salary package 
together with other perks and benefits. On account of complete lack of skill 
and experience of running a company, PTV, once a profitable institution, 
experienced a sharp decline both financially and in its reputation as a 
major player in the electronic media market. It was burdened with an 
exorbitant amount of expenses on account of inefficient and inept 
management. In the context of the proper role of State agencies in the 
management of public sector enterprises, it was held in Habibullah Energy 
Limited and another Vs. WAPDA through Chairman and others (PLD 
2014 SC 47) that:- 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 5 :-
 
“28. An overview of the judgments reproduced or referred to 
herein above leaves little room for doubt that it is now a well-
settled principle of law that all public functionaries must 
exercise public authority, especially while dealing with the 
public property, public funds or assets in a fair, just, 
transparent and reasonable manner, untainted by mala fide 
without discrimination and in accordance with law, keeping 
in view the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens.” 
[Emphasis supplied] 
 
Hence notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Qasmi had resigned from his 
position, this Court has ample jurisdiction to consider a matter where it 
appears that public money has been misused through the corrupt practice 
of nepotism and favouritism by giving excessive salary/perks/privileges and 
incurring other undue expenses causing loss to the public exchequer. 
When the law is being blatantly flouted by the Executive at the expense of a 
national institution promoting public awareness and understanding of 
events, culture and heritage, and public money is showered on a chosen 
few as a favour without regard to qualification or merit, it undeniably 
becomes a matter of public importance. This Court is well within its powers 
to take cognizance of the matter under Article 184(3) of the Constitution on 
account of violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens, including 
those guaranteed under Article 18 and 25 of the Constitution. Even 
otherwise, this Court has the power to do complete justice under Article 
187 of the Constitution. 
3. 
 
Learned counsel for Mr. Qasmi raised certain preliminary 
objections vis-à-vis the Audit Report. As far as the objection to the 
disclaimers in the Audit Report is concerned, we reject this objection as 
unfounded because they are standard disclaimers that are routinely and as 
a matter of professional propriety inserted in every audit report. These do 
not affect the veracity of the Audit Report. Moreover, the record submitted 
to the Auditors has been verified by PTV’s officials and we do not believe 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 6 :-
that further verification is required. As regards the objection that the Audit 
Report states that the Auditors did not involve Mr. Qasmi in the audit 
process, and therefore he should not be condemned unheard, suffice it to 
say that Mr. Qasmi was issued a notice to appear in Court in person to 
explain his position. However, he chose to be represented by counsel. It is 
worthy to note that learned counsel for Mr. Qasmi herself prayed (in C.M.A. 
No.98/2018) for the matter to be referred to an auditor. Besides, she was given 
full opportunity to respond to the record brought before this Court by PTV 
and the Audit Report. As such, this objection is also overruled. 
4. 
 
Before delving into the reasons for our opinion, we find it 
expedient to provide a detailed account of the factual background of the 
instant matter. On 23.09.2015, Mr. Mohammad Azam, Secretary MOIBNH 
submitted a policy note seeking special exemption from the Cabinet 
Division’s instructions of 09.10.2007 regarding the upper age limit of 65 
years for the appointment of heads of autonomous bodies under MOIBNH:- 
 
As discussed, it is considered view of this Ministry that 
in case of certain specialized media – literary organizations 
(Lok Virsa, Pakistan National Council of the Arts, Pakistan 
Academy of Letters and Pakistan Television Corporation). The 
Government requires highly professional and experienced 
candidates from open market to provide professional 
leadership to the said organizations. 
 
2. 
The presence of Cabinet Division’s instructions of 9th 
October, 2007 obligating this Ministry to observe upper age 
bracket of 65 years limits the choice of the Government for 
hiring really experienced professionals in media and literature 
who actually attain specialized excellence in post 65 years age 
bracket. 
[Emphasis supplied] 
 
A draft summary was accordingly issued for the approval of the Prime 
Minister (PM), the contents whereof mirror the aforementioned policy note. 
It also mentioned the following:- 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 7 :-
 
4. 
It is proposed that Prime Minister may kindly relax this 
upper age limit to the extent of following MOIBNH 
jurisdictional organizations as a special case:- 
a. 
Lok Virsa. 
b. 
Pakistan National Council of the Arts. 
c. 
Pakistan Academy of Letters. 
d. 
Pakistan Television Corporation. 
5. 
Minister for Information, Broadcasting & National 
Heritage has seen and approved the submission of the 
Summary. 
 
Mr. Javaid Aslam, Secretary to the PM, vide letter dated 29.09.2015 sought 
a clarification from MOIBNH on inter alia the following:- 
 
6. 
Ministry of Information, Broadcasting and National 
Heritage may clarify the following: 
 
iii. 
The specific grounds for seeking exemption from the 
subject instructions in respect of the organizations mentioned 
at para 4 of the summary may also be explained including the 
literary and media related nature of these organizations and 
the benefits of having veterans as Chairpersons of these 
organizations.  
 
In response thereto, Mr. Mohammad Azam, Secretary MOIBNH vide letter 
dated 05.10.2015 clarified inter alia as under:- 
 
7. 
Prime Minister’s Office directions at (Para – 6) of the 
Summary refer MOIBNH clarification is explained below:- 
 
c. 
MOIBNH four jurisdictional organizations listed at 
Para – 4 of the Summary, by nomenclature, reflect their 
professional operations in terms of art, culture, media, 
literature and issues relating to higher learning in designated 
professional disciplines. Capping the senior appointments up 
to the age of 65 is respect for routine GOP bodies – but not in 
the instant case where people of higher learning and proven 
understanding / achievements are required to contribute – who 
normally attain this position in (sic) beyond 65 years age 
bracket that entitles them to be on the national canvass. 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 8 :-
 
Subsequently, Mr. Fawad Hasan Fawad, Additional Secretary to the PM 
issued a letter dated 22.10.2015 which read as follows:- 
 
9. 
In view of the justification given in para 7 of the 
summary, the Prime Minister has been pleased to approve the 
proposal at para 4 of the summary. 
 
Thereafter, Ms. Saba Mohsin Raza, Additional Secretary, MOIBNH issued a 
summary to the PM dated 30.10.2015 for the appointment of the Chairman 
of PTV. The important parts of the summary read as below:- 
 
2. 
The composition of the eight-Members Board of 
Directors for PTVC has been notified vide M/o IB&NH 
No.1(11)/2001-TV, dated 22 October 2007 (Annex-I). One of 
the Directors has to be an eminent person from the media to 
be appointed by the Federal Government and that position is 
lying vacant. 
 
3. 
The framework for appointment of Chairman/Director 
PTVC is governed by following set of laws and regulations:- 
 
a) Section – 183 (b) of the Companies Ordinance – 1984 
empowers 
the 
Federal 
Government 
to 
notify 
the 
composition of the Board of Directors of PTVC. The said 
Section empowers the Federal Government by stating that 
nothing in Sections – 178, 180 or 181 shall apply to 
“Directors nominated by the Federal Government or a 
Provincial Government on the BOD of the Company” 
(Annex-2). 
 
b) Article-95 of PTVC’s Memorandum & Articles of 
Association (Annex-3) states that the “BOD shall elect a 
Chairman of the Company from amongst the Directors 
representing Government of Pakistan to preside over their 
meeting, and determine the period for which he is to hold 
office. The office of the Chairman shall be filled up on any 
vacancy by the Directors in accordance with the directives 
received by them from the Government of Pakistan”. 
 
4. 
It is, therefore, proposed that:- 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 9 :-
 
a. Mr. Atta ul Haq Qasmi who is an eminent literary 
personality with nationwide recognition in the disciplines 
of poetry, drama, literature and media (CV at Annex-5) 
may be appointed as Director of the Company for a period 
of three years and also act as Chairman of PTVC. 
 
b. Mr. Atta ul Haq Qasmi is 72 years old, however, the Prime 
Minister has already relaxed the upper age limit (65 years) 
for appointment of Heads of M/o IB&NH four 
jurisdictional organizations vide an earlier approved 
Summary (22-10-2015 – Annex-6), which includes PTVC 
Chairman. 
 
6. 
Approval of the Prime Minister is solicited to the 
proposal contained in Para-4 (a & b) and Para-5 above. 
 
7. 
Minister for Information, Broadcasting and National 
Heritage has seen and approved the submission of the 
Summary. 
[Emphasis supplied] 
 
Mr. Nadeem Hassan Asif, Secretary Establishment issued a letter dated 
13.11.2015 stating the following in furtherance of the foregoing summary:- 
 
8. 
…the Prime Minister may approve appointment of Mr. 
Atta ul Haq Qasmi as Director of PTVC and may also like to 
convey direction of the Federal Government to the Board of 
Directors to elect him as Chairman, PTVC. 
 
10. 
Proposal at para 6, read with paras 8&9, is submitted 
for orders of the Prime Minister, please. 
 
Subsequently, Mr. Fawad Hassan Fawad, Secretary to the PM, issued the 
following approval dated 23.11.2015:- 
 
11. 
The Prime Minister has been pleased to approve the 
proposal at para 6 read with paras 8 and 9 of the summary. 
 
Thereafter, a notification dated 23.12.2015 was issued by MOIBNH:- 
 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 10 :-
 
With the approval of the Competent Authority, and in 
partial modification of this Ministry’s earlier Notification No. 
1(11)/2001-TV dated 22nd October, 2007, and in exercise of the 
power conferred under Section – 183 (b) of the Companies 
Ordinance – 1984, the Government of Pakistan is pleased to 
re-notify the composition of the Board of Directors of PTVC, 
with appointment of Federal Government nominee, Mr. Atta-
ul-Haq Qasmi as one of the Directors as well as Chairman of 
the Board of Directors of the Corporation – as follows :- 
 
1. Mr. Atta-ul-Haq Qasmi 
 
Member and Chairman 
(Federal Government nominee) of the PTVC Board  
  
of Directors 
2. Additional Secretary,  
 
Ex-officio Member 
M/o Information, Broadcasting  
& National Heritage 
3. Vice Chancellor, Allama  
Ex-officio Member 
Iqbal Open University 
4. Additional Secretary (Admn), 
Ex-officio Member 
M/o Foreign Affairs 
5. Additional Secretary (B),  
Ex-officio Member 
M/o Finance 
6. Director General, ISPR  
Ex-officio Member 
7. Managing Director, PTVC 
Ex-officio Member 
8. Director General, PBC 
 
Ex-officio Member 
 
2. 
Mr. Atta-ul-Haq Qasmi as Federal Government 
nominee shall, unless he resigns earlier, hold office for a 
period of 3 years. The above administrative re-composition of 
the Board is to be read in sync with PTVC’s Memorandum and 
Articles of Association (Article – 95) which are in line with the 
Provisions of the Companies Ordinance – 1984. 
 
3. 
The terms and conditions of Mr. Atta-ul-Haq Qasmi’s 
appointment shall be decided separately by Ministry of 
Information, Broadcasting & National Heritage. 
 
Another summary for the PM dated 08.01.2016 was moved by Ms. Saba 
Mohsin Raza, Acting Secretary MOIBNH regarding the terms and conditions 
of Mr. Qasmi’s appointment as the Chairman of PTV:- 
 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 11 :-
2. 
Mr. Qasmi has been appointed in terms of Section – 
183 (b) of the Companies Ordinance – 1984, read with, 
PTVC’s Memorandum and Articles of Association (Article – 
95) as one of the Directors of the PTVC’s Board against the 
position of “one eminent person from the media to be 
appointed by the Federal Government” in terms of MOIBNH 
earlier notification (22nd October, 2007: Annex – 4). Mr. 
Qasmi has been appointed for three years tenure which is 
protected 
under 
Public 
Sector 
Companies 
Corporate 
Governance Rules – 2013 (Rule – 5 : 1) that states as under :- 
 
i. 
“A Director, once appointed or elected, shall hold 
office for a period of three years, unless he resigns or is 
removed in accordance with the provisions of 
Companies Ordinance – 1984”. 
 
3. 
It may be noted that the appointment against the said 
position did not warrant open advertisement in terms of Civil 
Establishment Code – 2007 (Volume – I: Chapter – 2 : SI. 
No. 141 : sub para – iii : a & b : Page – 216 - 217) – as the 
appointment has been made under Section – 183 (b) of the 
Companies 
Ordinance 
– 
1984, 
read 
with, 
PTVC’s 
Memorandum and Articles of Association (Article – 95). 
 
5. 
The operation of the Ministry of Finance Public 
Sector Management Grades vide their O.M of (24th 
December, 2012 : Annex – 5) is not warranted in this case as 
the appointment has not been made through an open 
advertisement in terms of Civil Establishment Code – 2007 
(Volume – I : Chapter – 2 : SI. No. 141 ; sub para – iii : a & b 
: Page – 216 - 217). Instead, other set of Law of the Land has 
been applied. 
 
6. 
Above in consideration, Mr. Atta ul Haq Qasmi’s 
terms and conditions of appointment have been worked out 
(Annex – 6) that would entitle him to receive a consolidated 
salary package of Rs. 15,00,000/- (net of taxes) per month, 
which approximately is slightly higher than what Mr. 
Muhammad Malick MD – PTV is currently being paid (Rs. 
13,80,000/- per month : net of taxes). 
 
7. 
Minister for Information, Broadcasting & National 
Heritage has seen and approved submission of the Summary. 
 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 12 :-
8. 
Prime Minister is requested to approve the proposal at 
Para – 6 above.  
[Emphasis supplied] 
 
Mr. Waqar Masood Khan, Finance Secretary issued a letter dated 
26.02.2016 which reads as under:- 
 
9. 
Finance Division endorses the proposal at para-6 of the 
Summary.  
 
Thereafter Mr. Fawad Hasan Fawad, Secretary to the PM issued the 
following letter dated 28.02.2016:- 
 
10. 
The Prime Minister has seen and is pleased to approve 
the proposal contained in para 6, as endorsed by Finance 
Division vide para 9 of the summary.  
 
Finally vide notification dated 29.02.2016, the terms and conditions of 
appointment of Mr. Qasmi as the Chairman of PTV were issued:- 
 
2. 
…the competent authority has approved following 
terms and conditions of the appointment of Mr. Atta-ul-Haq 
Qasmi, Chairman, Pakistan Television Corporation (PTVC), 
with effect from 23rd December, 2015, as given below:- 
 
1 
2 
3 
Sl. No. Subject 
Terms & Conditions 
1. 
Salary & 
Allowances 
Rs. 15,00,000/- (net of taxes) 
2. 
Leave 
As admissible to MP – I public office 
holders. 
3. 
TA/DA 
As admissible to MP – I public office 
holders. 
4. 
Period of 
Contract 
For three years in terms of Article – 95 
of PTVC’s Memorandum and Articles of 
Associations to be determined by the 
PTV 
BOD 
on 
directions 
of 
the 
Government of Pakistan, read with, Rule 
– 5 of Public Sector Companies 
Corporate Governance Rules – 2013.  
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 13 :-
5. 
Medical and 
Entertainment 
As admissible to MP – I public office 
holders. 
6. 
Termination of 
Contract 
One month’s notice on either side or 
payment of one month’s salary in lieu 
thereof. 
7. 
Conduct and 
Discipline 
As per Civil Servants Conduct Rules – 
1964. 
8. 
Administrative 
and Financial 
functions 
As detailed in Public Sector Companies 
Corporate Governance Rules – 2013. 
9. 
Administrative 
and professional 
framework 
As detailed in PTVC’s Articles and 
Memorandum of Association enabled 
under Companies Ordinance – 1984. 
10. 
Reporting 
Channel 
As detailed in Rules of Business – 1973 
(Schedule – II : Entry – 16 : provision – 
13 : ii : a). 
11. 
Verification of 
antecedents on 
first appointment 
in public sector 
In line with Civil Establishment Code – 
2007 (Volume – I : Chapter – 2 : SI. No. 
17), read with, Civil Establishment Code 
– 2007 (Volume – II : Chapter – 9 : SI. 
No. 170 – 172). 
 
3. 
Pakistan Television Corporation Limited (PTVCL) 
Management is advised to take further necessary action in this 
regard.  
 
5. 
 
From the foregoing factual background emanate the following 
questions of law which will be addressed accordingly:- 
i. 
Whether Mr. Qasmi’s appointment to the post of Director 
and/or Chairman of PTV was legal/valid in light of the 
relevant law and the Articles of Association of PTV (AoA)? 
 
ii. 
Irrespective of the answer to question No.i, whether Mr. 
Qasmi was legally entitled to the salary package that he 
received in light of the relevant law and the AoA and 
whether the expenses incurred by Mr. Qasmi or on his 
behalf were legal/valid? 
 
iii. 
If the answers to questions No.i and ii are in the negative, 
who 
is 
to 
be 
held 
responsible 
for 
such 
illegal 
appointment and/or expenditure? 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 14 :-
 
[Note:- Since the duration of Mr. Qasmi’s term includes periods both prior to and post the 
promulgation of the Companies Act, 2017 on 30.05.2017, the Companies Ordinance, 1984 will be 
deemed to be applicable to the former, and the Act to the latter.] 
 
i. 
Whether Mr. Qasmi’s appointment to the post of Director and/or Chairman of 
PTV was legal/valid in light of the relevant law and the AoA? 
6. 
 
Learned counsel for Mr. Qasmi referred to Section 183(b) of the 
Companies Ordinance, 1984 (the Ordinance) read with Articles 95 and 106 of 
the AoA to argue that PTV was bound by any nomination made by the 
Federal Government, therefore Mr. Qasmi’s appointment as a Director and 
the Chairman of PTV was legally valid. She stated that the Federal 
Government exercised its discretion that it thought fit at the relevant time 
and 
this 
Court 
has 
no 
jurisdiction 
to 
interfere 
with 
such 
discretion/decision making power. She relied on Rule 4(4) of the Rules of 
2013 to submit that while the Chairman of the Board of Directors (Board) of 
a Public Sector Company is to be elected by the Board of such company, 
this does not apply where the Chairman of the Board is appointed by the 
Government; besides, not being elected as Chairman by the Board is a 
curable defect as per Section 185 of the Ordinance; nonetheless his 
appointment was ratified by the Board as is evident from the minutes dated 
12.04.2016 of the 211th Board meeting. According to her, if the Court is to 
judge his qualifications, then it should also examine his performance at the 
end of the tenure, and that Mr. Qasmi was instrumental in bringing in 
extra revenue to PTV by his actions. She also pointed out that the age 
relaxation was not specific to him. As regards Mr. Qasmi’s credentials, 
learned counsel highlighted a number of honorary awards and positions he 
occupied previously and his literary contributions. 
7. 
 
 The learned AG referred to Article 95 of the AoA and stated 
that the Chairman of PTV is to be elected by the Board and there is no role 
of MOIBNH or the PM. He candidly mentioned that paragraph 4(a) of the 
summary for appointment dated 23.09.2015 establishes that there was no 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 15 :-
earlier process of advertisement. Even otherwise the learned AG was of the 
view that Mr. Qasmi was not qualified to hold the post of Chairman.  
8. 
 
This question about the legality of the appointment of Mr. 
Qasmi can be subdivided into two parts: (i) Mr. Qasmi’s appointment as a 
Director of PTV; and (ii) his appointment as the Chairman of PTV. With 
respect to the first part, the primary provision of law is Section 183(b) of the 
Ordinance which states that “Nothing in section 178, section 180 or section 181 shall 
apply to…directors nominated by the Federal Government…on the board of directors of the 
company.” Sections 178, 180 and 181 of the Ordinance pertain to the 
procedure for election of directors, the term of office of directors, and 
removal of directors, respectively and by virtue of Section 183(b) thereof, 
they do not apply to such nomination by the Federal Government. 
According to Article 83 of the AoA, “Subject to the provisions of Section 183 of the 
Ordinance, the Government of Pakistan shall have the right to nominate directors who shall 
hold office during the pleasure of the Government of Pakistan…” (note:- while learned 
counsel for Mr. Qasmi referred to Article 106 of the AoA, we do not find it to be relevant to this case 
as it pertains to election and removal of directors and directives of the Government of Pakistan with 
respect to any casual vacancy on the Board of Directors). Therefore under the law the 
Federal Government has the power to nominate a Director to the Board of 
PTV.  
9. 
 
An important question that stems from the foregoing is what is 
the criteria on the basis of which such nomination is to be made? Rule 3(1) 
of the Rules of 2013 provides that “The Board shall consists (sic) of executive and 
non-executive directors…with the requisite range of skills, competence, knowledge, 
experience and approach so that the Board as a group includes core competencies and 
diversity considered relevant in the context of the Public Sector Company’s operations.” 
Furthermore, according to Rule 3(7) of the Rules of 2013, “The appointing 
authorities, including the Government…shall apply the fit and proper criteria given in the 
Annexure in making nominations of the persons for election as Board members under the 
provisions of the Ordinance.” The Annexure to the Rules of 2013 provides a 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 16 :-
non-exhaustive list of the criteria for the purpose of determining as to 
whether a person proposed to be appointed as a director is a fit and proper 
person. According to such list the person should, amongst other things, be 
at least a graduate, a reputed businessman or a recognized professional 
with relevant sectoral experience, have financial integrity, no convictions or 
civil liabilities, be known to have competence, have good reputation and 
character, have the traits of efficiency and honesty, and does not suffer 
from any disqualification to act as a director stipulated in the Ordinance or 
from a conflict of interest, etc. [Clause (1) of the Annexure]. The Annexure also 
provides certain conditions for disqualification [Clause (2) thereof]. These 
criteria prescribed by the Rules of 2013 ensure that highly competent and 
capable people are appointed to the Boards of Public Sector Companies so 
that such companies are run in a smooth and efficient manner. In the 
instant case, while PTV is a media organization and therefore experience in 
the relevant sector of media would undoubtedly be helpful. At the end of 
the day PTV is a big company with an annual turnover of Rs.8.778 billion  
in the year 2014 but a comprehensive loss of Rs.1.467 billion;1 an annual 
turnover of Rs.9.4 billion in the year 2015 but a comprehensive loss of 
Rs.0.437 billion;2 and an annual turnover of Rs.9.54 billion but a 
comprehensive loss of Rs.1.736 billion.3 Business management skills and 
experience of running a big company are the basic requirements for an 
MD/Chairman to efficiently run such a huge commercial enterprise. While 
we refrain from commenting as to whether Mr. Qasmi indeed possessed 
such skills, the point to be noted is that nowhere from the record produced 
before us was it evident that the Federal Government considered such 
criteria while nominating Mr. Qasmi as a Director of PTV. In fact, the 
summary dated 30.10.2015 moved to the PM for Mr. Qasmi’s appointment 
as a Director and the Chairman of PTV fails to state his business 
                                       
1 PTV’s Annual Report 2014. 
2 PTV’s Annual Report 2015. 
3 PTV’s Annual Report 2016. 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 17 :-
management and media sector skills, whilst answering the AoA 
requirement that “One of the Directors has to be an eminent person from the media”. 
This depicts the myopic and stubborn resolve of the Federal Government to 
accommodate Mr. Qasmi against the said position. 
10. 
 
Another pertinent question that must be answered is what is 
the manner in which such nomination is to be made? Paragraph 3 of the 
summary for the PM dated 08.01.2016 regarding the terms and conditions 
of Mr. Qasmi’s appointment as the Chairman of PTV states that “the 
appointment against the said position did not warrant open advertisement in terms of Civil 
Establishment Code – 2007 (Volume – I: Chapter – 2 : SI. No. 141 : sub para – iii : a & b : 
Page – 216 - 217) – as the appointment has been made under Section – 183 (b) of the 
Companies Ordinance – 1984, read with, PTVC’s Memorandum and Articles of Association 
(Article – 95).” At this juncture it is necessary to examine SI. No. 141 of the 
Civil Establishment Code (Esta Code) which contains the Policy Guidelines for 
Contract Appointments for posts in Autonomous/Semi-Autonomous 
Bodies, Corporations, Public Sector Companies etc. owned and managed by 
the Federal Government:- 
 
In 
order 
to 
regulate 
contract 
appointments 
in 
Autonomous/Semi-Autonomous Bodies, Corporations, Public 
Sector Companies etc., owned and managed by the Federal 
Government, the Chief Executive has been pleased to lay down 
the following policy guidelines:–  
 
(i)  In the case of tenure posts, appointment to which is 
regulated by specific provisions of a law, rule and policy 
instructions, contract appointments may be made in the 
manner prescribed in the applicable law, rules and policy 
guidelines/directions issued by the Federal Government.  
(ii)  For projects which have a limited life…  
(iii)  For posts other than those mentioned at (i) and (ii) 
above contract appointments should be made only subject to 
fulfillment and observance of the following conditions:  
(a) Where the nature of a particular job/vacant position 
requires contract appointment for a specific period, 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 18 :-
standing 
instructions 
should 
be 
issued 
by 
the 
administrative 
Ministry/Division 
concerned, 
after 
consultation with the Chairman of the Board of 
Directors/Board of Governors, specifying such posts and 
the parameters governing appointment on contract basis 
against such posts.  
(b) Vacancies should be advertised in the leading national 
and regional newspapers.  
(c) Selection should be made through regularly constituted 
Selection Committees/Boards.  
 
*[(v) The contract appointment, where justified, may be made 
for a period of two years initially, on standard terms including 
termination clause of one month’s notice or one month’s pay in 
lieu thereof. Extension may be made on two yearly basis].  
[Emphasis supplied] 
 
As mentioned above, the summary dated 08.01.2016 simply stated that 
Clause (iii) of SI. No.141 did not apply to the instant case because Mr. 
Qasmi was appointed under Section 183(b) of the Ordinance read with 
Article 95 of the AoA. While at first glance it may seem that appointment as 
a Director of PTV is “regulated by specific provisions of a law, rule and policy 
instructions” as per Clause (i) of SI. No.141 and thus no advertisement for 
such post is required, it must be seen whether or not such post is a ‘tenure 
post’. In the case of Pakistan Vs. Fazal Rahman Khundkar and another 
[PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 82] this Court held that:- 
 
…the expression “tenure post” as defined by Fundamental 
Rule 9 (30-A) is “a permanent post which an individual 
Government servant may not hold for more than a limited 
period”. The meaning of the expression was considered very 
recently by this Court in the case of Mr. M. H. Khan (PLD 
1959 SC (Pak.) 13)…where it was held by the majority of the 
Judges who heard the case that by definition, a tenure post is 
one which cannot be held for more than the prescribed period 
without an order of extension; it is not to be understood to 
mean a post which is to be held for the period prescribed, once 
the appointment is made.” 
 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 19 :-
While it is prescribed in Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 2013 that a Director, once 
appointed or elected, is to hold office for a period a three years, Directors 
nominated by the Federal Government are to hold office ‘during the 
pleasure of the Government of Pakistan’ (Article 83 of the AoA). This is bolstered 
by Section 183(b) of the Ordinance which states that Section 180 thereof 
does not apply whereunder Directors are to hold office for a term of three 
years. Thus this particular post (Director of PTV appointed by the Federal Government) 
does not fall within the definition of ‘tenure post’ as explained above and 
therefore Clause (i) of SI. No.141 does not apply. Rather Clause (iii) thereof 
is attracted which stipulates certain conditions that must be fulfilled and 
observed before appointments can made to other contract posts. These 
conditions are: (i) issuance of standing instructions by the administrative 
Ministry/Division concerned, after consultation with the Chairman of the 
Board/Board of Governors, specifying such posts and the parameters 
governing appointment on contract basis against such posts; (ii) 
advertisement of vacancies in the leading national and regional 
newspapers; and (iii) selection through a regularly constituted Selection 
Committee/Selection Board. No cogent reasons were provided in the 
summary dated 08.01.2016 to justify the non-applicability of Clause (iii) of 
SI. No.141 of the Esta Code. Going further, it is pertinent to note SI. No.140 
of the Esta Code which provides the guidelines according to which the 
cases of appointment to various posts in autonomous/semi-autonomous 
bodies are to be processed. Being a public limited company, PTV is an 
autonomous public sector organization albeit regulated by company law. 
For the appointment of a Director of PTV, SI. No.140 iii.(a) is relevant which 
reads as under:- 
 
SI. No. 
Nature of Case 
Selection Procedure 
Approving Authority 
iii. (a) 
Appointment to posts in 
Management 
Grades 
other than of a Finance 
Member/Director 
and 
Selection Board headed by the 
Secretary 
of 
the 
Ministry/Division 
concerned 
to consider and recommend 
Prime 
Minister/Chief 
Executive 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 20 :-
those covered by (i)4 
and (ii)5 above 
from a panel of three names 
for each vacancy. 
 
Therefore while SI. No.141 ibid requires, inter alia, selection through a 
regularly constituted Selection Board, according to SI. No.140 ibid, such 
Board is to be headed by the Secretary of the Ministry of MOIBNH to 
consider and recommend from a penal of three names for the vacancy of 
Director of PTV which was not so done in the instant case. Only one name 
was put forward, that of Mr. Qasmi. 
11. 
 
In light of the above, we find that while the Federal Government 
was empowered under Section 183(b) of the Ordinance read with Article 83 
of the AoA to appoint a Director to the Board of PTV, it had to do so by 
following the procedure prescribed in Clause (iii) of SI. No.141 of the Esta 
Code, keeping in mind the criteria laid down in Rules 3(1) and (7) and the 
Annexure (‘fit and proper’ person) to the Rules of 2013. Furthermore, the 
procedure laid down in SI. No.140 of the Esta Code had to be followed. 
Such a process additionally ensured transparency, merit and fairness in 
the appointment of public functionaries as required by the law laid down by 
this Court. We consider that disregard of the aforementioned procedure by 
the Federal Government in the instant case was meant to benefit a 
predetermined candidate, Mr. Qasmi. His appointment as a Director of PTV 
was made in violation of the prescribed legal criteria and procedure. It is 
hereby declared to be illegal. 
12. 
 
We shall now examine the law with respect to the second part 
of the question regarding Mr. Qasmi’s appointment as the Chairman of 
PTV. Rule 4(4) of the Rules of 2013 in force at the time of Mr. Qasmi’s 
appointment provided that, “The Board shall elect its chairman from amongst the 
independent directors so as to achieve an appropriate balance of power, increasing 
accountability, and improving the Board’s capacity for exercising independent judgment.” 
                                       
4 Appointment of Chief Executive/Head of the Organization. 
5 Posting of government servants of (a) BS-21 and above; and (b) BS-20 and above. 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 21 :-
It is worth noting that Rule 4(4) of the Rules of 2013 relied upon by the 
learned counsel for Mr. Qasmi during the course of hearing that, “The 
chairman of the Board shall be elected by the Board of Directors of the Public Sector 
Company. However, this provision shall not apply where chairman of the Board is 
appointed by the Government” only came into force on 21.04.2017 vide S.R.O. 
No.275(I)/2017 issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission of 
Pakistan after Mr. Qasmi had retired, which substituted the originally 
enacted Rule 4(4) of the Rules of 2013. Be that as it may, according to 
Article 95 of the AoA, “The Board of Directors shall elect a Chairman of the Company 
from amongst the Directors representing Government of Pakistan to preside over their 
meeting, and determine the period for which is to hold office. The office of the Chairman 
shall be filled up on any vacancy by the Directors in accordance with the directives received 
by them from the Government of Pakistan and subject to the provision of the Ordinance.” 
We are not persuaded to read Article 95 of the AoA to mean that election 
ought to have taken place only in the absence of any directives received by 
the Federal Government as argued by the learned counsel for Mr. Qasmi as 
that would render the first part of Article 95 supra redundant. Her 
argument that nothing turns on the fact that the Board did not formally 
elect the Chairman ignores the point that requirements of the law (including 
those stipulated in the AoA) must be followed in letter and spirit and no one, 
including the Government, can be allowed to flout and disregard such 
requirements. When confronted whether a meeting of the Board was 
convened in this regard, Mr. Pervaiz Rashid stated that according to his 
recollection, a Board meeting was held but the minutes were not recorded. 
Be that as it may, the minutes of the 211th Board meeting held on 
06.01.2016 were brought to our attention wherein under item No.1 it was 
stated that, “Mr.Atta ul Haq Qasmi has taken over the charge of the post of Chairman, 
PTVC w.e.f. 23.12.2015…it is proposed that…nomination of Mr.Atta ul Haq Qasmi, as 
Chairman/Director, PTVC Board of Directors/Government of Pakistan’s nominee may be 
confirmed from the same date.” We do not find this to have been done in 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 22 :-
accordance with law for the reason that this meeting was held after the 
notification of Mr. Qasmi’s appointment as Chairman was issued on 
23.12.2015 and after he had assumed charge as Director and Chairman of 
PTV vide Charge Assumption Report of even date. Therefore, Mr. Qasmi’s 
appointment as Chairman of PTV is also declared to be illegal.  
Before proceeding to the second question, we consider it appropriate 
to mention that Article 95-A of the AoA is an alternate provision dealing 
with the situation where the Board of PTV elects a person as Chairman 
when it (the Board) “is of the opinion that a person be elected as Chairman whose 
presence would bring, in the opinion of the Board, prestige to the Company then it may elect 
such person as the Chairman whether he is or is not a Director of the Company.” 
Although this Article does not apply to the instant matter and it was no 
one’s case that it does, even if we were to assume for argument’s sake that 
Mr. Qasmi was appointed as Chairman under Article 95-A supra, such 
appointment would again be hit by the reasoning above that the Board had 
never elected Mr. Qasmi as Chairman. Neither any Board meeting was held 
for the said purpose nor was any Board resolution passed to that effect. 
13. 
 
The foregoing discussion clearly suggests that the illegal 
appointment of Mr. Qasmi as a Director and the Chairman of PTV was 
undertaken in a systematic and methodical manner, beginning from the 
special exemption from the upper age limit of 65 years for the appointment 
of heads of autonomous bodies under MOIBNH to the summary for Mr. 
Qasmi’s appointment. No justification was provided for relaxation of the 
upper age limit. When confronted, Mr. Pervaiz Rashid, the then Minister for 
Information, stated that his department assisted him in the matter of the 
summary for appointment of Mr. Qasmi after which the matter went to the 
Establishment Division which never sent the summary back to him. He 
stated this was not the first time that a Chairman was appointed or paid 
remuneration, and that no law or rules were violated. We find that Mr. 
Rashid did not have the power or authority to decide and propose (even in 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 23 :-
consultation with his department) on his own, the name of any particular individual 
for the post in question. No advertisement was made, no criteria was laid 
down and no qualifications were taken into account. The discretionary 
power of appointing a Director under Section 183(b) of the Ordinance 
cannot be reduced to a simple ‘cherry picking’ of Mr. Qasmi by the Federal 
Government, rather as per Article 9 of the Constitution and various 
judgments of this Court, a transparent procedure of appointment should 
have been adopted, in this case in line with SI. No.141 of the Esta Code, 
which inter alia entails publishing an advertisement to gauge the talent pool 
available for such post, filtering and then assessing the best candidates for 
the post in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Rules of 2013. In 
this case admittedly there was no advertisement for appointment to the 
said post thus there was no consideration of any pool of potentially capable 
candidates from which Mr. Qasmi was chosen. In fact, the process started 
and ended with his name, and was therefore person-specific, rendering the 
exercise colorable and tainted with nepotism and mala fide. We are in no 
manner of doubt that every endeavor was made to turn Mr. Qasmi’s 
appointment into a reality. While the Federal Government has the power to 
nominate a Director on the Board of PTV and even issue directives to such 
Board to elect a Chairman, the proper procedure provided in law and the 
relevant rules, guidelines and criteria as discussed above had to be followed 
when making such appointments. This Court held in Ghulam Rasool Vs. 
Government of Pakistan (PLD 2015 SC 6)6 that:- 
 
“9. 
…The Federal Government has been expressly 
empowered 
by 
the 
Legislature 
to 
make 
high-level 
appointments in accordance with the criteria specified in the 
concerned Acts / Ordinances. In case of companies 
incorporated in the public sector under the Companies 
Ordinance, 1984, the appointment and removal of Directors is 
                                       
6 See also Khawaja Muhammad Asif Vs. Federation of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 1205) wherein this Court 
discussed the parameters to be followed by the Government while making appointments to public bodies.  
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 24 :-
comprehensively dealt with under the said Ordinance and the 
memorandums, 
rules/regulations 
framed 
thereunder. 
However, it is also made clear that the Court's deference to 
the Executive Authority lasts for only as long as the Executive 
makes a manifest and demonstrable effort to comply with and 
remain within the legal limits which circumscribe its power. 
Even where appointments are to be made in exercise of 
discretionary powers, such powers are to be employed in a 
reasonable manner.” 
 
Failure of the Federal Government to exercise its discretionary powers in a 
reasonable manner meant that it had exercised its power arbitrarily and at 
its own whim and caprice. The Federal Government not only bypassed the 
law, but took active steps for appeasement upon which this Court 
expresses its disapproval and dismay. In light of the above, Mr. Qasmi’s 
appointment as a Director and the Chairman of PTV is declared to be illegal 
and without any lawful effect. 
 
ii. 
Irrespective of the answer to question No.i, whether Mr. Qasmi was legally entitled 
to the salary package that he received in light of the relevant law and the AoA and 
whether the expenses incurred by Mr. Qasmi or on his behalf were legal/valid?? 
13. 
 
Learned counsel for Mr. Qasmi argued that his salary was the 
Federal Government’s decision alone and he cannot be attributed any 
blame in this regard. Therefore the letter dated 29.02.2016 fixing his terms 
and conditions of appointment is valid and Mr. Qasmi was legally entitled 
to the salary and monetary benefits including other perks, privileges, and 
allowances, etc.. However, when confronted with the question why Mr. 
Qasmi was given a tax free salary of Rs.1,500,000/- when no Chairperson 
of any other similar entity was drawing such amount, learned counsel had 
no satisfactory explanation except that some previous Chairmen of PTV 
also drew generous salaries, but no evidence was provided to substantiate 
such claim. She also attempted to justify the same by stating that Mr. 
Qasmi was the de facto MD of PTV which according to her warranted such 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 25 :-
generous salary. In this regard, the learned AG pointed out that the posts of 
MD and Chairman are distinct. He submitted that according to the letter 
dated 29.02.2016, Mr. Qasmi was entitled to perks including leave, TA/DA 
and medical etc. as admissible to MP-I public office holders. However in fact 
he had unlimited entitlement for entertainment and other heads pursuant 
to minutes of the 119th Meeting of the Board of PTV held on 17.02.2000 
(confirmed at the Board meeting held on 11.03.2000, hereinafter referred to as the “Board 
Resolution 2000”). According to Article 95-A of the AoA the post of Chairman is 
honorary in nature thus he is not entitled to any remuneration. As regards 
the expenses outlined below, the learned AG submitted that they were 
unnecessary, arbitrary and whimsical. He stated that while the matter 
could be referred to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), he was of the 
view that Mr. Qasmi should not be subjected to a NAB inquiry due to Mr. 
Qasmi’s advanced age and literary contributions and insisted that the offer 
of voluntarily returning these expenses incurred by PTV be accepted. 
14. 
 
Before proceeding further, we find it expedient to discuss the 
roles of the Chairman and MD and the relevant law in this regard. 
According to Article 96. i) of the AoA, “There shall be Chief Executive of the 
Company who shall be appointed in the manner provided in Section 196 and 199 of the 
Ordinance by the Board from amongst the Directors representing the Government of 
Pakistan. He may be styled as the Managing Director.” Section 2(6) of the Ordinance 
defines a Chief Executive as “…an individual who, subject to the control and 
directions of the directors, is entrusted with the whole, or substantially the whole, of the 
powers of management of the affairs of the company, and includes a director or any other 
person occupying the position of a chief executive, by whatever name called, and whether 
under a contract of service or otherwise;” As per Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 2013, 
“The chief executive is responsible for the management of the Public Sector Company and 
for its procedures in financial and other matters, subject to the oversight and directions of 
the Board, in accordance with the Ordinance. His responsibilities include implementation of 
strategies and policies approved by the Board, making appropriate arrangements to ensure 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 26 :-
that funds and resources are properly safeguarded and are used economically, efficiently 
and effectively and in accordance with all statutory obligations.” Rule 4(1) of the Rules 
of 2013 provides that “The office of the chairman shall be separate, and his 
responsibilities distinct, from those of the chief executive.” Rule 4(2) thereof describes 
the role of the Chairman which is to “(a) ensure that the Board is properly working 
and all matters relevant to the governance of the Public Sector Company are placed on the 
agenda of Board meetings; (b) conduct the Board meeting including fixing the agenda; and 
(c) ensure that all the directors are enabled and encouraged to fully participate in the 
deliberations and decisions of the Board. The chairman has a responsibility to lead the 
Board and ensure its effective functioning and continuous development, he shall not be 
involved in day to day operations of the Public Sector Company.” Mr. Qasmi was 
appointed as a Director and the Chairman of PTV and not the MD. As is 
clear from the foregoing discussion the roles, duties and responsibilities of 
the Chairman and MD are distinct and separate and they are not to be 
conflated. Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 2013 categorically states that the 
Chairman is not to be involved in the day to day operations of the Public 
Sector Company which is the function of the MD as per Section 2(6) of the 
Ordinance and Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 2013.  
15. 
 
With respect to remuneration, according to Section 191(2) of 
the Ordinance, “The remuneration to be paid to any director for attending the meetings 
of the directors…shall not exceed the scale approved by the company or the directors, as the 
case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the articles.” In this respect the AoA 
provide in Article 85 that “Unless otherwise determined by the Company in General 
Meeting each Director (other than a Chief Executive and a full time working Director) shall 
be paid out of the funds of the Company by way of remuneration for his services, the amount 
to be determined by the Company or the Directors, for each meeting of the Directors 
attended by him.” Article 86 of the AoA goes on to clarify that “The remuneration 
of the Directors, shall from time to time be determined by the Company in its General 
Meeting, except those who are deputed to work on a whole time basis in which case the 
remuneration will be determined by the Board.” 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 27 :-
16. 
 
With respect to Directors performing extra services, including 
the holding of the office of Chairman, Section 191(1) of the Ordinance 
provides that their remuneration “…shall be determined by the directors or the 
company in general meeting in accordance with the provisions in the company's articles” 
(note:- the same statutory provision in verbatim is retained as Section 170 of the Companies Act, 
2017). In this regard the AoA state in Article 87 that “Any Director appointed to 
any executive office including for the purpose of this Article the office of Chairman…or to 
devote special attention to the business of the Company or who otherwise perform extra 
services, which in the opinion of the Board are outside the scope of the ordinary duties of a 
Director, may be paid such extra remuneration by way of salary, fees, allowances or 
otherwise as shall from time to time be determined by the Directors.” ‘The Directors’ 
has been defined in Article 2. vi) of the AoA as “the directors for the time being of 
the Company or as the case may be, the directors assembled as a Board”, and ‘Board’ 
has been defined in Article 2. iii) thereof as “a meeting of the directors duly called 
and constituted or as the case may be the directors assembled at a Board.” 
17. 
 
The foregoing indicates that the remuneration of Directors, 
other than a Chief Executive and a full time working Director, is to be 
determined by the Company in its General Meeting, whereas the 
remuneration of the Directors who are deputed to work on a whole time 
basis is to be determined by the Board. The remuneration of Directors who 
perform extra services including holding the office of Chairman is also to be 
decided by the Board. Therefore the remuneration of Mr. Qasmi, being a 
Director who also held the additional charge of Chairman, had to be 
determined by the Directors of PTV in a duly constituted Board meeting 
which is absent in the instant case. Instead, Mr. Qasmi’s remuneration 
(including his salary of Rs.1,500,000/- and certain benefits/allowances) was determined by 
MOIBNH in its summary for the PM dated 08.01.2016 signed by Ms. Saba 
Mohsin Raza, the then Acting Secretary MOIBNH, which was seen and 
approved by Mr. Pervaiz Rashid, the then Minister of Information. The said 
summary was subsequently approved by the Finance Division as is evident 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 28 :-
from paragraph No.9 thereof signed on 26.02.2016 by Mr. Waqar Masood 
Khan, the then Finance Secretary, and thereafter was seen and approved 
by the PM through approval dated 28.02.2016 signed by Mr. Fawad Hasan 
Fawad, the then Secretary to the PM. Finally the terms and conditions of 
Mr. Qasmi as the Chairman of PTV were issued by MOIBNH on 29.02.2016. 
There was no determination of any sort by the Board of PTV in this regard. 
It should be noted that the minutes of the Board Resolution 2000 is 
available on the record which sanctions some entitlements of the 
Chairman, however, this does not include salary. The Board Resolution 
2000 shall be discussed further below with respect to Mr. Qasmi’s 
benefits/allowances. 
18. 
 
While the arguments of Mr. Qasmi’s counsel and the 
summaries moved for his appointment ring praises of his literary 
background, no justification has been provided for the special treatment he 
was afforded nor has it been explained as to why a Chairman was offered a 
salary package that is more generous than that of an MD whose duties and 
functions are of a managerial nature while the duties of the former are 
limited to overseeing the working of the Board (as discussed above). The 
argument of his learned counsel that Mr. Qasmi was acting as de facto MD 
and was performing extra services does not save him because as mentioned 
above, as per Article 87 of the AoA, if any Director is appointed to the office 
of Chairman or devotes special attention to the business of the Company or 
otherwise is performing extra services, a determination is to be made by the 
Board as to whether such special attention or extra services are outside the 
scope of the ordinary duties of a Director after which the Board may decide 
to pay the Director such extra remuneration in the form of salary, fees, 
allowances, etc. There is no Board resolution on record to suggest that the 
Directors of PTV made any such determination with respect to Mr. Qasmi. 
Nonetheless, some of the officials involved in the process of Mr. Qasmi’s 
appointment submitted that the post of Chairman is higher than that of 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 29 :-
MD, and since the then MD was drawing a handsome salary/perks, 
therefore 
Mr. 
Qasmi 
was 
offered 
a 
monthly 
salary 
package 
of 
Rs.1,500,000/-. According to the Audit Report, Mr. Qasmi’s total salary 
amount received during his tenure was Rs. 35,806,452/- and the tax paid 
by PTV in this regard was Rs.12,439,908/- resulting in a gross salary 
expense by PTV of Rs.48,246,360/-. Here it would be relevant to refer to 
Rule 17(2)(f) of the Rules of 2013 which provides that in the Board’s annual 
report to the shareholders, a statement and the requisite information to the 
effect that “the appointment of chairman and other members of Board and the terms of 
their appointment alongwith (sic) the remuneration policy adopted are in the best interests 
of the Public Sector Company as well as in line with the best practices.” Furthermore 
according to Rule 17(3) of the Rules of 2013, “The disclosure of an Executive’s 
remuneration is an important aspect for a Public Sector Company. The annual report of a 
Public Sector Company shall contain a statement on the remuneration policy and details of 
the remuneration of members of the Board. Separate figures need to be shown for salary, 
fees, other benefits and other performance-related elements.” Despite the fact that 
PTV has suffered colossal losses during the past seven years, Mr. Qasmi 
was awarded with a generous salary and exorbitant perks and privileges. 
This raises serious concerns as to whether the remuneration policy of the 
Chairman is “in line with the best practices.” Admittedly in the year 2008 the 
salary of Mr. Shahid Masood, the then Chairman of PTV, was Rs.850,000/- 
however it must be noted that he also had the additional charge of MD, PTV 
whose role and responsibilities are different and much more than that of a 
Chairman 
of 
PTV 
as 
mentioned 
earlier. 
Mr. 
Qasmi’s 
salary 
of 
Rs.1,500,000/- was also far beyond the salary admissible to MP-I public 
office holders which, as per the Finance Division’s Office Memorandum (OM) 
dated 24.12.2012 (in force at the time of Mr. Qasmi’s appointment), could be a 
maximum of Rs.372,000/- (basic pay of Rs.240,000/-, house rent of Rs.105,000, utilities of 
Rs.12,000 and an increment of Rs.15,000/-). 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 30 :-
19. 
 
Salary 
aside, 
Mr. 
Qasmi 
was 
also 
given 
certain 
benefits/allowances, the entitlement whereof is contained in two 
documents, the terms and conditions letter dated 29.03.2016 read with the 
Finance Division’s Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2012 and the Board 
Resolution 2000 which is illustrated in the table below:- 
 
Subject 
Entitlement 
as per Mr. 
Qasmi’s 
terms and 
conditions 
letter dated 
29.03.2016 
Finance Division’s Office Memorandum 
dated 24.12.2012 (in force at the time of 
Mr. Qasmi’s appointment) 
Board 
Resolution 
2000 
Leave 
As 
admissible to 
MP-I public 
office 
holders. 
The incumbent shall earn leave on full 
pay @ 3 days per month for the period 
of duty. The leave shall be availed 
during the currency of contract period. 
Title to leave shall expire on expiry of 
contract. If given a fresh contract, the 
period of earned leave available in 
respect of the previous contract shall not 
be carried forward. 
- 
Travelling 
allowance/Daily 
allowance 
As 
admissible to 
MP-I public 
office 
holders. 
As admissible to civil servants of the 
highest grade (domestic official tour).  
 
As admissible to civil servants in Cat-I 
(official duty abroad). 
- 
Medical 
As 
admissible to 
MP-I public 
office 
holders. 
Reimbursement 
of 
medical 
and 
hospitalization charges for self, spouse, 
and children for treatment received at 
Govt. or Govt. Recognized institutions 
in Pakistan. 
No limit 
Entertainment 
As 
admissible to 
MP-I public 
office 
holders. 
- 
No limit 
Chauffer driven 
car 
- 
Monetized value of transport facility for 
MP-I @ Rs.95,910/- 
One 
Petroleum, oil 
and lubricants 
(POL) 
- 
- 
No limit 
Air travel 
- 
- 
Club class on 
official tours 
Hotel stay 
- 
- 
Paneled hotels 
on 
official 
tours 
Mobile 
- 
- 
No limit 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 31 :-
telephone 
Two STD office 
telephones 
- 
- 
No limit 
One fax 
machine with 
telephone line 
- 
- 
No limit 
Computer with 
printer 
- 
- 
One 
Office 
stationery 
- 
- 
No limit 
Newspaper and 
magazines 
- 
- 
No limit 
Refrigerator 
- 
- 
One 
 
20. 
 
A brief summary of the expenses incurred by or on behalf of 
Mr. Qasmi as determined by the Auditors is reproduced below:- 
 
Description 
Expense as 
determined by 
the Auditor 
Breakdown 
Learned counsel for Mr. 
Qasmi’s arguments 
Travel (domestic 
and international) 
Rs.1,437,501/- 
TA/DA, self-approved 
daily allowances of 
Rs.301,753/- and 
travel expenses of 
Rs.215,727/- to Lahore 
(also his place of 
residence) on or near 
weekends, expenses 
from his stay at 
Ramada Hotel after he 
assumed the office of 
Chairman costing 
Rs.284,753/- and 
international travel to 
Belarus costing 
Rs.400,510/- to attend 
a book exhibition. 
These expenses were not paid 
to Mr. Qasmi directly but to 
the travel agents etc. Mr. 
Qasmi was only a beneficiary 
thus he is not entitled to 
return them.  
Medical expenses Rs.355,278/- 
 
 
Medicines purchased 
(Rs.56,999/-) and 
hospital facilities 
(Rs.2,550/-) availed 
from non-paneled 
chemists and hospitals. 
Incurred as per the 
notification of the Finance 
Division. 
Entertainment 
expenses 
Rs.2,359,602/- 
 
 
Includes Islamabad 
Club membership of 
Rs.1,543,153/-. 
The Islamabad Club 
membership and subscription 
fee was approved by the then 
MD. The other entertainment 
expenses are covered by the 
Board Resolution 2000. 
Vehicle running 
Rs.1,998,913/- 
Official vehicle 
Mr. Qasmi was entitled to the 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 32 :-
and maintenance 
expense 
(Honda Civic Vti 
Oriel, SJ-332) – 
Rs.787,743/-. 
Official vehicle 
(Toyota Corolla Altis, 
JV-515) – Rs.430,578. 
Personal vehicle 
(Mercedes E-200, 
LEA 332) – 
Rs.780,592/-. 
chauffer driven car as per the 
Board Resolution 2000. As 
far as the second car is 
concerned, he has refunded 
the amount to PTV. With 
regard to the expenses 
incurred by PTV on account 
of the maintenance and fuel 
of the personal vehicle, she 
admits he had no entitlement 
thus Mr. Qasmi is willing to 
return such amount.  
Telephone/mobile 
expense 
Rs.569,366/- 
 
 
Includes expenses 
incurred at Mr. 
Qasmi’s Islamabad 
office (Rs.123,789/-), 
residence at the guest 
house (Rs.22,000/-), 
and mobile phone 
(Rs.423,577/-). 
He was entitled to these 
according to the notification 
of the Finance Division and 
the Board Resolution 2000.  
Refreshment/food 
expenses (Lahore 
office) 
Rs.207,252/- 
 
 
- 
This food was not for Mr. 
Qasmi’s consumption alone, 
but the entire office.   
Guest house 
expenses 
(Shalimar 
Recording and 
Broadcasting 
Corporation 
Limited “SRBC”) 
Rs.2,104,000/- 
Includes room rent 
(Rs.1,460,000/-), 
salary of cook 
(Rs.600,000/-), and 
purchase of items 
(Rs.44,000/-). 
Private matter between Mr. 
Qasmi and SRBC as the 
expenses were charged to him 
directly. She states he would 
be willing to pay the room 
rent. However the cook is 
SRBC’s employee thus Mr. 
Qasmi is not liable to pay for 
the same nor the other 
expenses incurred.  
Newspapers and 
periodicals 
Rs.62,734/-. 
- 
 
Chairman’s office 
renovation 
expenses 
Rs.2,486,228/- 
Office renovation 
(Rs.1,082,440/-) and 
purchase of equipment 
(Rs.1,403,788/-). 
He did not authorize nor was 
a signatory to the renovations 
etc. It was authorized by the 
MD. The equipment and 
goods have been bought by 
PTV and subsequently 
retained by PTV, Mr. Qasmi 
has not kept the things with 
him for his personal benefit. 
Chairman’s camp 
office’s expenses 
Rs.1,356,795/- 
This includes: 
renovation of office – 
Lahore (Rs.754,276/-), 
furniture (Rs.225,810/-
), two ACs, 3 LEDs, 
window blinds 
(Rs.270,498/-), Smart 
TV internet 
(Rs.30,460/-), vehicle 
Mr. Qasmi only used it when 
he went to Lahore. These are 
normal expenses incurred in 
the normal course by PTV for 
improving their own property 
and for the benefit of PTV 
and the GM in particular. 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 33 :-
hiring expenses 
(Rs.22,770/-) and 
telephone expenses 
(Rs.52,981/-). 
Program 
expenses 
(“Khoye hu’unn 
ki Justaju”) 
Rs.59,326,257/- Transmission costs 
(Rs.51,648,873/-), 
program host salary 
(Rs.3,157,161/-), 
talent fee 
(Rs.2,456,750/-), 
program parties, 
design and props 
(Rs.960,440/-), 
travelling 
(Rs.773,204/-), hiring 
of technical facilities 
(Rs.63,000/-), vehicles 
hiring (Rs.69,526/-), 
guest entertainment 
(Rs.33,960/-), and 
staff food and mobile 
(Rs.163,343/-). 
PTV did not charge for any 
transmission costs, they are 
not remotely related to Mr. 
Qasmi. As a host of a 
programme has got nothing to 
do with transmission costs nor 
is he liable for them. The 
figure of transmission costs is 
arbitrary and made up by the 
auditors. The actual costs are 
the remaining which were 
incurred on account of the 
production of the programme, 
not one penny of it went to 
Mr. Qasmi even though he 
was the host, therefore he is 
not liable to pay for the same.  
Press 
advertisement 
expenses 
Rs.55,104,720/- - 
No money was actually 
incurred by PTV, this was 
under a barter arrangement. It 
is a notional expense, and in 
any event, if Mr. Qasmi is one 
of the co-hosts of a 
programme which is 
produced by PTV, this is not 
to the direct benefit of Mr. 
Qasmi and he is not liable for 
such amount. 
Program promos 
Rs.23,768,685/- These are the normal 
transmission costs.  
Not remotely related to Mr. 
Qasmi and he has got nothing 
to do with such costs or be 
liable for them. The figure is 
an arbitrary number made up 
by the auditors. 
Ramadan 
transmission – 
Chairman’s 
promos – 
transmission 
costs 
Rs.551,700/- 
 
Payment to Mr. 
Yasir Pirzada 
Rs.480,000/- 
 
 
Fees paid to 
writers 
Rs.31,770/- 
 
 
Hotel expenses 
Rs.29,855/- 
 
 
Writers’ 
conference 
expenses 
Rs.61,625/- 
 
 
Administrative 
decisions of Mr. 
Qasmi 
- 
 
In the absence of an MD for 
such a long period of time, 
Mr. Qasmi was de facto MD 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 34 :-
and hence these were 
justified. 
 
 
21. 
 
As  mentioned earlier, remuneration (salary and benefits/allowances) 
of a Director also performing the functions of a Chairman has to be 
determined 
by 
the 
Board. 
Therefore 
the 
salary 
and 
other 
benefits/allowances given to Mr. Qasmi vide MOIBNH’s letter dated 
29.03.2016 read with the Finance Division’s OM dated 24.12.2012 were 
inadmissible and illegal as there was no Board resolution to this effect. In 
this regard, repeated reliance has been placed on the Board Resolution 
2000 in Mr. Qasmi’s defense, however, considering the spirit of the Rules of 
2013, particularly Rules 17(2)(f) and 17(3) thereof, we find that the 
unlimited benefits/allowances granted to the office of the Chairman of PTV 
is not in line with the policy of the ‘best interests of the Public Sector 
Company.’ Furthermore, Rule 5(7)(o) of the Rules of 2013 specifically 
provides that “The Board shall also formulate significant policies of the Public Sector 
Company, which may include…capital expenditure planning and control.” Moreover, 
Rule 5(5)(a) and (b) provide that:- 
 
(5)  
The Board shall establish a system of sound internal 
control, which shall be effectively implemented at all levels 
within the Public Sector Company, to ensure compliance with 
the fundamental principles of probity and propriety; 
objectivity, integrity and honesty and relationship with the 
stakeholders, in the following manner, namely:-  
(a)  
the principle of probity and propriety entails that 
company’s assets and resources are not used for private 
advantage and due economy is exercised so as to reduce 
wastage. The principle shall be adhered to, especially with 
respect to the following, namely:-  
(i) 
handling of public funds, assets, resources and 
confidential information by directors, executives and 
employees; and  
(ii) 
claiming of expenses;  
 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 35 :-
(b)  
the principle of objectivity, integrity and honesty 
requires the following, namely:-  
(i) 
the directors and executives of a Public Sector 
Company do not allow a conflict of interest to 
undermine their objectivity in any of their activities, 
both professional and private and that they do not use 
their position in the Public Sector Company to further 
their private gains in a social or business relationship 
outside the Public Sector Company. If a situation arise 
where an actual or potential conflict of interest exists, 
there shall be appropriate identification, disclosure 
and management of such conflict of interest;  
(ii) 
An appropriate conflict of interest policy is developed 
and duly enforced. Such a policy shall clearly lay 
down circumstances or considerations when a person 
may be 11 deemed to have actual or potential conflict 
of interest, and the procedure for disclosing such 
interest:  
Explanation: For the purposes of this clause a 
person shall be deemed to have an interest in a matter 
if he has any stake, pecuniary or otherwise, in such 
matter which could reasonably be regarded as giving 
rise to a conflict between his duty to objectively 
perform his functions under these rules so that his 
ability to consider and decide any matter impartially 
or to give any advice without bias, may reasonably be 
regarded as impaired;  
(iii) 
where a director, executive or other employee has a 
conflict of interest in a particular matter, such person 
shall play no part in the relevant discussion, decision 
or action;  
(iv) 
A “register of interests” is maintained to record all 
relevant personal, financial and business interests, of 
directors and executives who have any decision 
making role in the company, and the same shall be 
made publicly available. Such interests may include, 
for 
instance, 
any 
significant 
political 
activity, 
including office holding, elected positions, public 
appearances and candidature for election, undertaken 
in the last five years;  
(v) 
a declaration by the directors and executives that they 
shall not offer or accept any payment, bribe, favor or 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 36 :-
inducement which might influence, or appear to 
influence, their decisions and actions; and 
(vi) 
the Board shall also develop and implement a policy 
on “anticorruption” to minimize actual or perceived 
corruption in the company. 
 
22.   
Even a cursory perusal of the above reveals that the Board 
Resolution 
2000 
allowing 
unlimited 
expenditure 
for 
certain 
benefits/allowances of the Chairman of PTV is not in line with the 
principles of probity and propriety, objectivity, integrity, honesty and due 
economy in the claim of expenses, as mentioned above. Further, Mr. 
Qasmi’s actions, as evidenced in the Audit Report, were not in consonance 
with the aforementioned principles contained in the Rules of 2013, as he 
failed to lead by example to ensure that these principles were promoted, 
rather he himself acted contrary to PTV’s interest. While Article 87 of the 
AoA permits the Board to determine the remuneration for any extra services 
performed by a Director including holding the office of Chairman, we do not 
think that the Board can sanction excessive remuneration by way of 
various benefits/allowances while keeping in mind the spirit of the Rules of 
2013. It is incomprehensible as to why such excessive benefits/allowances 
as mentioned in the Board Resolution 2000 (see the table in paragraph 19 above) 
such as office entertainment and entertainment of guests outside office etc. 
is required for the ‘smooth running’ of the company. More importantly 
when the Rules of 2013 were enacted, the policies and inner workings of all 
Public Sector Companies including PTV had to be brought in line with the 
Rules of 2013 as per Rule 24 thereof and any contravention of the said 
Rules can potentially result in imposition of penalties under Rule 25. Thus, 
the Board Resolution 2000 should have either been amended or completely 
discarded unless the approved expenses could be justified in terms of how 
they were necessary in light of the performance of duties of Mr. Qasmi as 
the Chairman of PTV.  
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 37 :-
23. 
 
As mentioned earlier, the Rules of 2013 set out the specific role 
of the Chairman and to our mind none of these duties requires excessive 
entertainment, petrol and telephone expenses or international travel, etc. 
Being a public document, the Chairman of PTV is expected to have been 
aware of the Rules of 2013 enacted specifically to regulate Public Sector 
Companies. He should have played an instrumental role in implementing 
rather than flouting the said Rules. Therefore in light of the foregoing, we 
hold that the payment of salary and the benefits/allowances to Mr. Qasmi 
was unlawful and unauthorized under the Rules of 2013 and the AoA. He 
was not entitled to such payments and cannot retain the same.  
24. 
 
It is crucial to note that the post of a Director (and therefore 
Chairman of the Board) of a company and for that matter a Public Sector 
Company is fiduciary in nature [note:- for the purposes of the discussion in this 
paragraph, reference is made both to the Ordinance and the Companies Act, 2017 (the Act) since 
both of these applied at various times during Mr. Qasmi’s tenure]. As per Section 217 of the 
Ordinance (Section 212 of the Act) a Director may be declared to be lacking 
fiduciary behavior if he contravenes the provisions of inter alia Section 214 
of the Ordinance (Section 205 of the Act) which states that “Every director of a 
company who is in any way, whether directly or indirectly, concerned or interested in any 
contract or arrangement entered into, or to be entered into, by or on behalf of the company 
shall disclose the nature of his concern or interest at a meeting of the directors.” 
Regardless of the fact that Mr. Qasmi did not receive any monetary benefit 
in terms of payments for the programme ‘Khoye Hu’uun ki Justuju’, we find 
that being a host thereof (while he was a Director and the Chairman of PTV) he was 
benefiting from the same and had a personal interest in airing of the 
program. Therefore he was liable to disclose the same to the Board. 
According to the Audit Report, the said programme did not go through 
PTV’s standard practice for approval of production of programmes and 
there is no board resolution approving the same. We are of the view that 
pushing for the development and promotion of this programme renders Mr. 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 38 :-
Qasmi guilty of self-promotion and personal aggrandizement by utilizing 
public money. Furthermore, regarding the matters of the hiring of Mr. 
Qasmi’s son, Mr. Yasir Pirzada, as a scriptwriter for the drama ‘Dhund’ at 
Rs.80,000/- per episode, using two instead of one official car and getting 
maintenance and running allowances for a third personal car, using PTV 
funds to pay the membership and subscription fees of Islamabad Club, 
incurring exorbitant expenses for renovation of various officers and for 
entertainment of guests inside and outside the office, and using public 
funds to attend a book exhibition completely unrelated to his duties as a 
Director and Chairman of PTV, we find that Mr. Qasmi breached his 
fiduciary duties. He failed to “act in good faith in order to promote the objects of the 
company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in the best interests of the 
company,” [Section 204(2) of the Act] to “discharge his duties with due and reasonable care, 
skill and diligence” and “exercise independent judgment,” [Section 204(3) of the Act] and 
he put himself “in a situation in which he may have a direct or indirect interest that 
conflicts, or possibly may conflict, with the interest of the company” [Section 204(4) of the 
Act]. Furthermore, we find him guilty of “achiev[ing] or attempt[ing] to achieve… 
undue gain or advantage either to himself or to his relatives, partners, or associates.” 
Therefore in accordance with Section 204(5) of the Act, Mr. Qasmi is “liable 
to pay an amount equal to that gain to the company.” Being fully aware of the 
miserable and weak financial situation of PTV, and of his duties as a 
Director and the Chairman under the Rules of 2013, the Ordinance and the 
Act, he miserably failed to act in the interest of PTV. He grossly, 
intentionally and deliberately misused its funds for the purposes of self-
projection and self-enrichment. In light of the above, we are inclined to 
declare, under Section 217 of the Ordinance (Section 212 of the Act), Mr. Qasmi 
to be lacking fiduciary behavior. Consequently, from the date of this 
judgment onwards he is declared to be ineligible to be appointed as a 
Director of any company as per Section 187(g) of the Ordinance [Section 153(g) 
of the Act]. 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 39 :-
25.   
 As an ancillary matter, the Audit Report also discusses the 
administrative actions taken by Mr. Qasmi. Suffice it to say that we are of 
the view that such actions are beyond the scope of duties of a Chairman as 
provided in the Rules of 2013. Therefore all such orders passed by Mr. 
Qasmi during his tenure are declared to be illegal and void ab initio. 
 
iii. 
If the answers to questions No.i and ii are in the negative, who is to be held 
responsible for such illegal appointment and/or expenditure? 
 
26. 
 
Concise statements were filed by Sardar Ahmad Nawaz 
Sukhera, Secretary Information and Broadcasting Division, Ms. Saba 
Mohsin Raza, Additional Secretary (R) MOIBNH, Mr. Nasir Jamal, Officer on 
Special Duty/Ex-Director General (IP) MOIBNH, Mr. Pervaiz Rashid, former 
Minister for Information, Mr. Fawad Hasan Fawad, former Secretary to the 
PM, Mr. Nadeem Hassan Asif, former Secretary Establishment Division and 
Dr. Waqar Masood Khan, former Finance Secretary. Their basic and 
common plea was that Mr. Qasmi’s appointment and terms and conditions 
were made in accordance with the relevant law and rules.  
27. 
 
We have noted that the approvals from the PM’s office as 
reproduced above were all issued and signed by Mr. Fawad Hasan Fawad. 
During the hearing on 26.02.2018 when he was asked to produce the file 
where the then PM had himself approved the summaries, Mr. Fawad stated 
that as a matter of practice, a file was placed before the PM who verbally 
issued an order and this has been the past practice in the PM’s office for 
the last 10 to 15 years. When asked to cite some rule or regulation 
supporting such practice, Mr. Fawad frankly conceded that there was no 
such rule in the Rules of Business, 1973 (the Rules of Business) which envisaged 
that verbal approval of the PM could be taken and conveyed and notified by 
his Secretary. He also conceded that in this particular case, the PM never 
made any noting on the file. Subsequently on 03.07.2018, Mr. Fawad came 
forth to state that Rule 5(11A) of the Rules of Business was now being 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 40 :-
implemented in letter and spirit and written approval of the PM was being 
sought with his signature. The said rule is reproduced herein below:- 
 
5. Transaction of Business.- (11A) Verbal orders given by a 
functionary of the Government should as a matter of routine be 
reduced to writing and submitted to the issuing authority. If 
time permits, the confirmation shall invariably be taken before 
initiating action. However, in an exigency where action is 
required to be taken immediately or it is not possible to obtain 
written confirmation of the orders before initiating action, the 
functionary to whom the verbal orders are given shall take the 
action required and at the first available opportunity obtain the 
requisite confirmation while submitting to the issuing authority 
a report of the action taken by him.  
 
According to him, in 99% of the cases it is done immediately after issuance 
of the approval/order, and in the rest of the cases it is done either next 
morning or as soon thereafter as possible. He concedes that the past 
practice was a lapse and requested the Court to condone the same. Coming 
to the facts of the instant matter, Mr. Fawad stated that the PM’s approval 
was only to the extent of Director and not for direct appointment as 
Chairman. Nevertheless he admitted that the proper process was not 
followed. He further stated that the remuneration of Mr. Qasmi was the 
business of the Finance Division, which was done by Dr. Waqar Masood 
Khan, former Finance Secretary with the approval of Mr. Ishaq Dar, the 
then Finance Minister, and that the perks and privileges was a matter for 
the Board of PTV to decide. He categorically stated that at no stage was Mr. 
Qasmi’s appointment as an MD approved by the PM and there was no such 
proposal before him.   
28. 
 
Learned counsel for Mr. Pervaiz Rashid, the then Minister of 
Information submitted that there were two instances where his client had a 
role in the instant matter: (i) summary dated 30.04.2015 for Mr. Qasmi’s 
appointment as a Director and the Chairman of PTV; and (ii) summary of 
Mr. Qasmi’s terms of appointment fixing his salary, both of which (summaries) 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 41 :-
were approved by Mr. Rashid. When confronted, Mr. Rashid stated that his 
department assisted him in the matter of preparation of the summary for 
Mr. Qasmi’s appointment. Thereafter, the matter was sent to the 
Establishment Division which never returned the summary to him in case 
they had any problem with it. With respect to Mr. Qasmi’s terms and 
conditions of service, the learned counsel argued that while such summary 
was routed through the Finance Division, the ultimate approval was given 
by the PM. With regard to the issue of the unlimited expenses, learned 
counsel argued that it was for the Board of Directors of PTV to explain as it 
fell within their domain. He made reference to Article 37 of the 
Memorandum of Association (MOA). As regards the issue of salary, he stated 
that the previous four Chairmen of PTV also drew salaries therefore it was a 
past practice which was followed. He further stated that he sought 
guidance from the Finance Division with respect to Mr. Qasmi’s terms and 
conditions, and the said Division did not advise against offer the said terms 
and conditions to Mr. Qasmi.   
29. 
 
According to the concise statement filed by Dr. Waqar Masood 
Khan, the former Finance Secretary, the summary dated 08.01.2016 for 
Mr. Qasmi’s terms and conditions was examined by the Regulation Wing of 
the Finance Division. It (Wing) moved a note dated 13.01.2016 which did not 
support the proposal (salary package of Rs.1.5 million and other facilities as per MP-I). It 
suggested that the referring Ministry be asked to revise the package in 
conformity with the salary of MP-Scales/Management Grade. Alternatively, 
they also suggested that the proposal may be endorsed. Thereafter the 
concerned Additional Secretary, while submitting the case to the Finance 
Secretary, recommended endorsement of MOIBNH’s proposal based on past 
precedents. The Finance Secretary on 18.01.2016 asked for further 
examination of the case in light of the role and responsibilities of the 
Chairman of PTV. The Regulation Wing then concluded in a note dated 
27.01.2016 that the proposed salary package was not warranted and a 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 42 :-
salary package of MP-1 be recommended. A draft endorsement along the 
recommended lines was prepared and submitted to the Finance Secretary 
on 29.01.2016. He sent the note to the Finance Minister, Mr. Ishaq Dar on 
30.01.2016. A noting dated 08.02.2016 on the draft endorsement stated 
that “FM has handed over a photocopy to Honorable PM on 8-2-2016. The PM Office 
would get back to us.” According to the Finance Secretary it was later conveyed 
that MOIBNH’s proposal should be supported by the Finance Division. 
Accordingly the Regulation Wing prepared a revised note dated 25.02.2016 
along with a revised draft endorsement that supported MOIBNH’s proposal. 
On 25.02.2016 the Finance Secretary sent the endorsement for the perusal 
of the Finance Minister, Mr. Ishaq Dar who then returned the file on 
26.02.2016 noting that the Finance Minister had seen it. Thereafter the 
endorsement was signed and sent to the PM the same day. 
30. 
 
The discussion throughout this opinion raises serious 
questions about the ethical and professional responsibility of the officials 
involved in the appointment of Mr. Qasmi and fixation of his terms and 
conditions of service, etc. when they should have been fully conversant with 
the relevant provisions of the Ordinance (and the Act), the Rules of 2013, the 
AoA and the Esta Code. The alarming negligence of the government officials 
which they tried to justify by stating that they were merely following orders 
from superiors/political heads, shows their utter lack of ability to 
withstand pressure and influence from higher officers or political bosses. 
Furthermore, it is evident that each official was trying to shift responsibility 
from himself onto the other Ministry(ies)/Division(s). This exercise of 
shirking responsibility and ignoring the rules has resulted in colossal loss 
of millions of rupees to the public exchequer and PTV. At this stage, it is 
pertinent to mention that public officials, particularly heads of Ministries 
who are elected representatives of the people of Pakistan, owe their first 
and foremost allegiance and loyalty to Pakistan, the Constitution and the 
law. Thus, they are obligated to act in accordance therewith, without being 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 43 :-
influenced by any extraneous considerations. Such officials are not allowed 
to take decisions and push for relaxations and summaries arbitrarily which 
bypass or circumvent the law and the rules and at their own whims and 
caprices in order to please certain individuals. Government officials are 
duty bound to discharge their functions independently and are not to be 
influenced by dictatorial misuse of powers and/or dictated exercise of 
discretion.7 In our view the instant matter is a clear cut case of dictated 
exercise of direction. At the cost of repetition, “it is now a well-settled principle of 
law that all public functionaries must exercise public authority, especially while dealing 
with the public property, public funds or assets in a fair, just, transparent and reasonable 
manner, untainted by mala fide without discrimination and in accordance with law, keeping 
in view the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens.”8 Therefore, we find the following 
officials responsible for the illegal appointment of Mr. Qasmi and the illegal 
fixation of his terms and conditions. 
31. 
 
Mr. Pervaiz Rashid, as the Minister for Information, was 
responsible for the following: (i) the summary dated 23.09.2015 for 
exemption from the upper-age limit as it was proposed in paragraph 4 that 
the upper age limit be relaxed for the heads of inter alia PTV. Upon a 
clarification sought by Mr. Javaid Aslam, Secretary to the PM, on 
29.09.2015 with respect to the said summary, it was stated in paragraph 
7(c) of the clarification letter dated 05.10.2015 issued by MOIBNH that the 
posts of the heads of autonomous bodies of inter alia PTV require people of 
higher learning and achievements which can only be achieved after the age 
of 65. This to our understanding is not at all a satisfactory or plausible 
justification; (ii) the summary dated 30.10.2015 for the appointment of Mr. 
Qasmi as the Chairman of PTV in which it was stated in paragraph No.4(a) 
that “Mr. Atta ul Haq Qasmi who is an eminent literary personality with nationwide 
                                       
7 See further the judgments of this Court reported as Province of Punjab Vs. Azhar Abbas (2002 SCMR 1), 
Samiullah Khan Marwat Vs. Government of Pakistan (2003 SCMR 1140), Syed Nazar Abbas Jafri Vs. 
Secretary to the Government of the Punjab and another (2006 SCMR 606), Human Rights Cases Nos. 
4668 of 2006, 1111 of 2007 and 15283-G of 2010 (PLD 2010 SC 759), Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi and 
others Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2013 SC 195). 
8 Habibullah Energy Limited (supra). 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 44 :-
recognition in the disciplines of poetry, drama, literature and media (CV at Annex-5) may 
be appointed as Director of the Company for a period of three years and also act as 
Chairman of PTVC.”; (iii) the summary dated 08.01.2016 for the terms and 
conditions of Mr. Qasmi in which it was incorrectly stated in paragraph 
No.3 that appointment to the post of Chairman did not warrant 
advertisement in terms of SI. No.141 of the Esta Code as appointment had 
been made under Section 183(b) of the Ordinance read with the AoA (Article 
95) and MoA; it was also proposed in paragraph No.6 that Mr. Qasmi’s 
salary has been worked out to be “Rs. 15,00,000/- (net of taxes) per month, which 
approximately is slightly higher than what Mr. Muhammad Malick MD – PTV is currently 
being paid (Rs. 13,80,000/- per month : net of taxes).” The arguments put forward by 
Mr. Rashid and his learned counsel were evasive whereby the brunt was 
being passed onto the former PM, and the Finance and Establishment 
Divisions. We do not believe that the MOIBNH had no role to play and that 
it was only acting as a conduit through which Mr. Qasmi’s appointment as 
well as terms and conditions of service were merely routed. We find that 
Mr. Rashid, as the Minister for Information, under which the business of 
PTV falls, was the most relevant person to make a decision regarding the 
candidate for the proposed post and the salary package (including 
benefits/allowances). It was his Ministry that thought it appropriate to seek 
relaxation of the upper-age limit for appointment to autonomous bodies. All 
three summaries were issued by MOIBNH. He had seen and approved both 
the summaries for appointment and fixation of terms and conditions of Mr. 
Qasmi. Being the head of MOIBNH, Mr. Rashid was responsible for the all 
of the above. He cannot be absolved of responsibility for his acts and 
omissions which were deliberate, intentional and consciously done and 
committed the responsibility and liability for which clearly falls on Mr. 
Rashid. 
32. 
 
The role of Mr. Ishaq Dar, the Finance Minister, in the 
assessment and calculation of the salary package of Mr. Qasmi as outlined 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 45 :-
above in paragraph No.29 is motivated. Due to his involvement in the 
instant matter, it was deemed appropriate to provide him an opportunity to 
justify his position. To that end notices were issued to him vide order dated 
3.7.2018 after which he was given various opportunities to appear before 
this Court vide orders dated 9.7.2018 and 12.07.2018. However, he failed 
to do so despite repeated notices, which were not only affixed at his 
residence but also published in the print and electronic media. We have 
reason to believe that he had knowledge of the notices sent and suo motu 
proceedings pending before this Court. He nevertheless chose to stay away 
and did not even appoint a counsel to represent him. We are therefore 
justified in presuming that he has nothing to say in his defence. We 
accordingly hold him along with the others responsible for the illegal 
fixation of the terms and conditions of service of Mr. Qasmi as the 
Chairman of PTV.  
33. 
 
As mentioned above, Mr. Fawad Hasan Fawad, Secretary to the 
PM, conceded that the past practice of seeking verbal approval of the PM 
was a lapse. He also admitted that the proper process for the appointment 
of Mr. Qasmi was not followed. Being a senior civil servant and the 
Secretary to the PM, it is reasonably expected of him to know the relevant 
law including the Esta Code, particularly that regarding the appointment to 
posts in autonomous bodies etc. for which the PM is the appointing 
authority. He should have raised an issue with or sought further 
clarification of the summary dated 30.10.2015 recommending only one 
person, i.e. Mr. Qasmi, as opposed to a panel of three names for the 
consideration of and appointment by the PM, and returned the same 
(summary) to the Establishment Division. Therefore we find that Mr. Fawad 
failed in his duty, as a civil servant, to act responsibly and with due 
diligence as he did not question the summary(ies) placed before the PM and 
instead went ahead and sought approval as a matter of routine. 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 46 :-
34. 
 
The illegal and exorbitant salary paid to and expenses incurred 
by or on behalf of Mr. Qasmi burdening PTV cannot be left unaccounted 
for. In the case reported as Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi Vs. Federation of 
Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 1054) this Court directed for the recovery of the 
salary along with perks and other emoluments paid to the members of 
Parliament who were declared to be disqualified:-  
 
“(e) 
The members of Parliament/Provincial Assemblies 
noted hereinabove, being disqualified persons are directed to 
refund all monetary benefits drawn by them for the period 
during which they occupied the public office and had drawn 
their emoluments etc. from the public exchequer including 
monthly remunerations, TA/DA, facilities of accommodation 
along with other perks which shall be calculated in terms of 
money by the Secretaries of the Senate, National Assembly 
and Provincial Assemblies accordingly.” 
 
A similar direction was issued in the case of Sher Alam Khan Vs. Abdul 
Munim and others (PLD 2018 SC 449), as under:- 
 
“34. 
Consequently, it is held that Respondent No.1 was not 
qualified to be and disqualified from being a Member of the 
Provincial Assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa at all material 
times, hence, was liable to be de-notified as such by the ECP. 
Furthermore, he was obliged to return all the benefits i.e. 
salary and other allowances received by him as a Member of 
the Provincial Assembly and also criminal proceedings as 
provided under the law are also directed to be taken against 
him…” 
 
35. 
 
According to our calculations illustrated below, a total amount 
of Rs.197,867,491/- is liable to be recovered being the loss caused to PTV:-  
 
Gross salary expense by PTV (+) 
Rs.48,246,360/- 
Total expenses incurred other than salary (sum of 
column two of the table in paragraph No.20) (+) 
Rs.152,292,301/- 
Expenses Mr. 
Qasmi willing to 
Vehicle running and 
maintenance expense [second 
official vehicle (Toyota Corolla 
Rs.430,578/- 
Rs.780,592/- 
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 47 :-
return or already 
returned (–) 
Altis, JV-515) and personal vehicle 
(Mercedes E-200, LEA 332)] 
SRBC room rent expenses 
Rs.1,460,000/- 
Total 
Rs.197,867,491/- 
 
In light of the foregoing discussion and taking into account the lapses and 
illegal actions committed by Mr. Qasmi as a Director and the Chairman of 
PTV and by the officials identified above, we hereby direct that the 
aforementioned amount be recovered from the named persons in the ratio 
stated below:- 
 
Name 
Reason for liability 
Ratio 
Mr. Ata ul Haq Qasmi 
Beneficiary of illegal acts 
50% 
Mr. 
Pervaiz 
Rashid, 
Minister for Information 
Ignored the law and disregarded their duty 
to confer benefit on Mr. Qasmi 
20% 
Mr. Ishaq Dar, Finance 
Minister 
20% 
Mr. 
Fawad 
Hasan 
Fawad, Secretary to the 
PM 
Failure to act with due diligence in 
processing the summary for appointment of 
the Director of PTV from a person-specific 
recommendation as opposed to a panel of 
three names as required by the Esta Code 
10% 
 
These amounts are their liabilities and they must reimburse the same to 
PTV. We give them an opportunity to do so voluntarily. However if they fail 
to do so within a period of two months, PTV is directed to recover the said 
amounts from them in the stated ratio as per the procedure in practice for 
the recovery of dues. 
36. 
 
As far as the issue regarding delay in the appointment of the 
MD of PTV is concerned, from which the matter of Mr. Qasmi’s appointment 
as Director and Chairman of PTV and the huge expenses incurred by or on 
his behalf emanated, we direct the Federal Government to look into the 
issue of the appointment of a full-time MD of PTV (if the position is still vacant) 
after fulfilling all legal, procedural and codal formalities, strictly in 
accordance with law. A report in this regard shall be submitted within two 
weeks of the issuance of this order.   
H.R.C. No.3654 of 2018 
-: 48 :-
37. 
 
To recapitulate:- 
i. 
Mr. Qasmi’s appointment as a Director and the Chairman of 
PTV is declared to be illegal and without any lawful effect; 
ii. 
The payment of salary and the benefits/allowances to Mr. 
Qasmi was unlawful and unauthorized. He was not entitled to 
such payments and cannot retain the same; 
iii. 
On account of lack of fiduciary behavior, Mr. Qasmi is declared 
to be ineligible to be appointed as a Director of any company 
from the date of this judgment onwards; 
iv. 
The administrative actions taken by Mr. Qasmi are beyond the 
scope of duties of a Chairman, therefore all such orders passed 
by him during his tenure are declared to be illegal and void ab 
initio; 
v. 
Taking into account the lapses and illegal actions committed by 
Mr. Qasmi as a Director and the Chairman of PTV, Mr. Pervaiz 
Rashid, Minister for Information, Mr. Ishaq Dar, Finance 
Minister and Mr. Fawad Hasan Fawad, Secretary to the PM, we 
hereby direct that the amount of Rs.197,867,491/- be 
recovered from them in the ratio stated in paragraph No.35 of 
this opinion; and 
vi. 
The Federal Government is directed to appoint a full-time MD 
of PTV (if the position is still vacant) after fulfilling all legal, procedural 
and codal formalities, strictly in accordance with law. 
 
This matter is disposed of in the aforementioned terms. 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Announced in open Court 
on 8.11.2018 at Islamabad 
Approved for Reporting 
M. Azhar Malik