ollowing a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, the federal and provincial governments have started taking departmental action against those government servants who had availed of the `voluntary return` option available in National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and returned their illegal monetary gains.

In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, different departments have issued show-cause notices to the concerned officials under the Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 2011. The show-cause notices are mostly issued to officials in the revenue, communication and works, and public health engineering departments. Several of the officials had moved the Peshawar High Court challenging the mode of issuance of show-cause notices to them under the E&D Rules. However, a bench headed by Peshawar High Court Chief Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel turned down pleas of around 35 of ficials.

These petitioners had claimed that under the Rules, the competent authority had to first initiate an inquiry, but in instant cases the authority had dispensed with the inquiry and instead directly issued show-cause notices. They also claimed that in rest of the country proper procedure had been followed while proceeding againstofñcialsin suchcases.

If these of ficials fail to get any relief from the apex court, there is likelihood of their removal from service.

A three-member SC bench, headed by ChiefJustice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, pronounced its order on Oct 24 and directed the secretary Establishment Division and all the chief secretaries of the provinces to ensure initiation of departmental proceedings forthwith against the employees who had voluntarily returned the amount in terms of Section 25 (a) of National Accountability Ordinance (NAO).

Ever since the NAO was promulgated during the military government of retired General Pervez Musharraf the provisions related to `plea-bargain` and `voluntary return` have been drawing criticism as its critics believe that these provisions have encouraged corruption and corrupt practices.

Under the provision of plea-bargain, an accused person stands disqualified from holding any public of fice for 10 years af ter he returns `ill-gotten` money. However, in case of `voluntary return` no such disqualification is available and a person continues to serve against his post even after returning back the amount which he or she has allegedly misappropriated.

The option of `voluntary return` is available in Section 25 (a) of NAO, which states: `Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 15 or in any other law for the time being in force, where a holder of public office or any other person, prior to the authorization of investigation against him, voluntarily comes forward andofferstoreturntheassetsorgainsacquired or made by him in the course, or as the consequence, of any offence under this Ordinance, the Chairman NAB may accept such offer and after determination of the amount due from such person and its deposit with the NAB dis-charge such person from all his liability in respect of the matter or transaction in issue: Provided that the matter is not sub judice in any court of law.

Similarly, Section 25(b) deals with plea-bargain. The said section states: `Where at any time after the authorization of investigation, before or af ter the commencement of the trial or during the pendency of an appeal, the accused offers to return to the NAB the assets or gains acquired or made by him in the course, or as a consequence, of any offence under this Ordinance, the Chairman NAB, may, in his discretion, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, accept the offer on such terms and conditions as he may consider necessary, and if the accused agrees to return to the NAB the amount determined by the Chairman NAB, the Chairman NAB shall refer the case for the approval of the Court, or as the case may be, the Appellate Court and for the release of the accused.

In its order the Supreme Court`s bench has observed: `The Court also noticed that in terms of Section 25(a) of the Ordinance, the NAB authorities af ter issuance of call up notices suggest to the accused that they may opt to come forward with the of fer of voluntary return of the amounts that have allegedly been acquired or earned illegally by them.

The bench pointed out that Section 25 (a) empowered the Chairman, NAB, to accept such voluntary returns made by the accused persons, the amount is deposited with NAB in installments at the discretion of the Chairman, NAB.

`Alarmingly, on payment of certain portion ofthe amount, such person is given clean chit by the NAB to rejoin his job. The frequent exercise of powers under Section 25 (a) by the NAB on one side has multiplied the corruption usurping the jurisdiction of the FIA and Anti-Corruption agencies and defeated the object of the Ordinance on the other hand.

The bench observed: `From the reports submitted by the Federal Government and the respective Provincial Governments, it appears that no departmental action has been taken against the officers/employees of different organizations including govt departments, who had voluntarily returned illegally acquired monetary gains, which is very unfortunate.

Once a person accused of corruption or corrupt practices volunteers to offer to return the amount he has pocketed or gained through illegal means, prima facie, cannot hold any Government/Public Of fice, as the very act of his offering the voluntary return falls within the definition of `misconduct` under the service law and calls for initiation of disciplinary action against the accused person(s).

The court pointed out that the report filed by the NAB mentioned that hundreds of employees/civil servants and others who had voluntarily returned the amounts in terms of Section 25(a) were still enjoying their office, without being exposed to any departmental proceedings which had further multiplied the corruption in the country.

`Primarily, the concept of voluntary return under the Ordinance was confined to those accused against whom the proceedings were yet to start and they, on their own, had approachedthe NAB authorities by offering the voluntary return of the amounts illegally gained or acquired by them. This concept, however, was sidetracked and instead the accused persons against whom call-up notices were issued on the strength of some complaint or otherwise are extended favours by the NAB under the garb of Section 25(a) which was never intended for,` the court ruled.

On its website, the NAB has uploaded three lists related to `voluntary return` from Jan 2006 till June 2016. The lists included around 700 persons, both public office-holders and private, who had returned different amounts to the NAB.

Some of the persons mentioned in these lists had returned hefty amounts. A few cases, with the returned amount mentioned in bracket, are: Tariq Khan, divisional forest officer (returned Rs34.26 million); Irfanullah, social mobiliser FATA Disaster Management Authority (Rs13.54 million); Haseenullah Khan, ex-chief executive officer of Bannu Cantonment Board (Rs10 million); Amjid Ali, ex-executive engineer public health engineering (Rs21.63 million); Syed Daud Jan, superintendent engineer C&W (Rs21.8 million); Ikramullah Khan, director PDA (Rs21.48 million); Inayatullah Khan, exdirector Nadra (Rs4.02 million); Daud Khattak, former district nazim (Rs67.13 million); If tikhar Hussain Qureshi, a private contractor (Rs87.67 million); Aurangzeb, ex-secretary local government (Rs8.6 million); Mian Hidayatullah, deputy director PDA (Rs8.2 million); and, Mohammad Wali Khan, ex-chief executive Pesco (Rs31.5 million).