+- Accountancy Forum (https://www.accountancy.com.pk/forum)
+-- Forum: General (https://www.accountancy.com.pk/forum/forum-general)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.accountancy.com.pk/forum/forum-general-discussion)
+--- Thread: WERE THEY ALL IGNORANT INCOMPETENT LOT, A LOGICAL (/thread-were-they-all-ignorant-incompetent-lot-a-logical)
WERE THEY ALL IGNORANT INCOMPETENT LOT, A LOGICAL - javed - 02-16-2008
It is my firm belief contrary to which no one can convince me that His Excellency General Pervaiz Musharraf is the only ruler one who really, sincerely and from inside his heart wished to do practically something for the betterment of the common man. For this he worked untiringly day and night. But at the same time it is also a fact that the more he struggled to ease the public life and the more he ensured provision of justice, the more public life became harder. Already existed justice drifted away from the common man. Thanks to the team perforce he had to choice and the bureaucracy who both were to translate into action the wishes of His Excellency. The circumstances both internal and external made him so engaged that he could not concentrate to fully know what was the fate of his directives and wishes. Syed Mushahid Hussain a dire supporter of General Musharraf is on record last month saying that despite efforts he could not know who were the advisers of the President on Chief Justice/Meida matters. Whatever justice which was available during previous governments practically slowly is distancing away from the common man despite more spending from the national exchequer in the name of reforms and availability of justice. For example, the State Bank of Pakistan created on huge expense a web online complaint system. In presence of that it then is created on a further continuing recurring huge cost a banking mohtasib and last week it still felt need of a new consumers complaint cell which is technically an official unwritten admission that its earlier web online complaint cell and the banking mohtasib have not proved useful or have failed.
On 1st November 2007 evening I was reading that Senate Committee on Defence had shown its dissatisfaction over affairs of PIA, treatment with passengers despite charging and keep increasing numerous travel taxes. I did not know what was happening at that moment with my wife at Karachi airport who was to board a flight. She is a frequent traveler but she met first ever most embarrassing and humiliating treatment at the airport which frightened her. For reasons I avoid nature of that at the moment. Immediately early next morning whatever the contact information could be gathered I addressed CAA Karachi, Manager Karachi Airport etc. Since the incident was of its own nature, my communication more than the complaint was a feed back on which all concerned should had jumped for investigation before the evidence get died. The first and the only response came after long 15 days from CAA Karachi that they will look into it. Just an acknowledgment after 15 days spoke well what was to happen. CAA later however despite my reminders did not come up with the outcome. Airport Manager did not give any response at all. Why has been given email facility on expense of this tax payer citizen I can not understand.
I firmly subscribe to the universal belief that it is not the rule, law or procedure which gives justice rather it is the âmanâ sitting on the chair who delivers. A public spirited man who believes rules & laws are framed from public welfare point and not from controlling or ruling the pubic, interprets a cited rule in that spirit while a man deprived of this God given spirit interprets the same words the other way round. I raised the issue of this non response by CAA with the Federal Ombudsman. The Dy. Registrar Ombudsman Office has rejected my complaint from processing on the ground that under Article 9 of Establishment of Ombudsman Order 1983 read with a some Notification of August 1988 any Department, Body, Authority or Organization under Defence Ministry has been placed outside the jurisdiction of the Mohtasib hence my complaint can not be taken.
A 1993 Federal Ombudsman Decision on a complaint Reg-I/14210/93 is before me. This citizen is a senior citizen diabetic having lost one eye in operation and having only 25% reading visibility in the other. Even with this poor visibility I can with confidence read the wordings of the Decision under which PIA was directed by the then Ombudsman Mr. Justice Usman Ali Shah to reinstate the complainant whose service was terminated 12 years back. To my knowledge PIA is under Defence Ministry. The Ombudsman further ordered to pay the complainant all dues for those 12 years termination including rights and privileges for that period. Another Decision of 1992 Reg-I/6829/92 is before me under which PIA was ordered by the Ombudsman to pay for the loss of TV during journey from Karachi to Lahore. One more decision of 1992 Reg-I/10101/92 against CAA is before me under which Mohtasib did not agree to unjust rule quoted by CAA in its defence. In another 1993 case Reg-I/2547/93 the Ombudsman directs CAA to reconsider the selection of law officers. In a 1996 decision also on 9 separate complaints the Ombudsman directed CAA for granting pension benefits to all those complainants. To my knowledge CAA too is under Defence Ministry. All the above references I have quoted from the Ombudsmanâs own record in print shape.
The Dy. Registrar or in fact the Federal Ombudsman quotes Article 9 of 1983 Establishment Order and some Notification of August 1988 as bar on jurisdiction. The very interesting is a Decision by a Sindh High Court Division Bench comprising Mr. Justice Haziqul Khairi and Mr. Justice Ahmed Yar Khan which reference more interestingly I picked it up from the Ombudsmanâs own record. The ombudsman had entertained a complaint against PIA over which it went into Appeal with the High Court. PIA took the same stand which the Dy. Registrar today is taking in not entertaining this tax payerâs complaint. PIA quoted same Article 9 of 1983 Order barring ombudsman. The SHC in this Constitutional Petition dismissed this contention declaring that Article 9 of 1983 does not bar the ombudsman from entertaining complaints against PIA.
This Article 9 of 1983 Order is there since 1982-83 when first ombudsman was introduced. When in 1983 PIA and CAA raised the question of ombudsmanâs jurisdiction the then Ombudsman, so far as per a serious Daily unmatched for, Mr. Justice Sardar Mohammad Iqbal who declared he was not a judge now but was an Ombudsman rejected this objection. He declared that his jurisdiction was barred only as far defence policy, defence deals, defence strategies were concerned and he was not barred at all where matter related to public ordinary day-to-day life dealing with these organizations. He entertained complaints against these organizations and delivered true justice. I myself got relief in the past. How much God had blessed him with public spirit can be judged from one example only. The P.O.I of 1983 to whicy the Dy. Refers allowed the Government Department/Agency a right of appeal. The 1983 Order was silent on appeal right. The public spirited Honourable Sardar Iqbal terming it an injustice and not a fair play, himself allowed the right of appeal in case the complainant was not satisfied with his decision. No rule came as a sword on his this natural decision. Mr. Justice Aslam Riaz Hussain, Mr. Justice S.A. Salam etc fortunately too public spirited the subsequent ombudsmen did follow the same practice and earned prayers of thousands of aggrieved.
Reading the letter of Dy. Registrar I wonder if all then then Dy. Registrars from 1983 to approximately 1995-96 and Ombudsman were incompetent or semi literate that they were not aware of provision of Article 9 of 1983 and August 1988 Notification? Did they over stepped their legal authority by giving justice to thousands and thousands of passengers and aggrieved despite this bar. I wonder today if the total amount including any pension so far paid to the PIA employee who was reinstated in 1993 with his 12 years arrears should not be recovered from the personal pockets as state recovery from the then Dy. Registrar who entertained the complaint and from the then Ombudsman who passed the order in violation of Article 9. On my complaint the then Ombudsman directed CAA to ensure no low level flying during night over Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Federal B Area etc. Was he not aware there existed Article 9. On order of the then Ombudsman PIA refunded me cost of an international call I had to make because PIA did not inform me about delayed departure of its flight. Should now I refund that amount back to PIA? Did the then Ombudsman and the Dy. Registrar not know that there existed Article 9? The mind of this senior citizen tax payer ânaturallyâ is puzzled are we heading forward or going reverse while often raising slogans for âjustice at door stepâ and spending even foreign aid/loans on improvement in so called justice system. About 15 years back Air Marshal Asghar Khan stated that there was a large army in the ombudsman who has either nothing or very little to do. I wonder what is his view today on todayâs so vast enlarged spread ombudsman system.
About four months back I had formally addressed my humble submission to His Excellency the President praying that the whole ombudsman system in Pakistan be shelved which except for a few hundred individual relieves per year is not producing anything substantial. The only heavy item this such a large system producing is very fine voluminous annual reports. I suggested that thus huge amount saved may be transferred to Human Right Section in the Supreme Court of Pakistan advising it to deal only issues of collective community interest which will leave better impact and save the government from many civic headaches faced by it today.