ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday observed the government seems to be paving the way for dissolution of the National Assembly through executive orders as it apparently overlooked statutory provisions in removing Mushtaq Sukhera from the post of Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO).

The power of the president to dissolve the National Assembly on his own was done away with under the 18th Amendment as parliament abolished proviso (2)(B) of Article 58 of the Constitution.

Chief Justice of the IHC Athar Minallah remarked that while there was a proper procedure for the removal of the ombudsman or any constitutional office-holder the presidential order bypassing the appropriate forums would damage the institutions as the president might de-notify even the prime minister in such a manner at some stage.

The court said `there is no allegation of misconduct against the petitioner nor it is the case of the federal government that Mushtaq Sukhera is incapable of properly performing his duties`.

The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) government last month `removed` Mr Sukhera through an executive order. As per a notification issued by the law ministry `in pursuance of President Secretariat (Public) U.O. No 5(106)/L&J/ Dir(Coord-V)/2019 dated June 03, 2019, Ministry of Law and Justice` Notification of even number dated August 31, 2018 regarding appointment of Mr Mushtaq Ahmed Sukhera (retired PSP/BS-22) as the Federal Tax Ombudsman is hereby withdrawn ab initio`.

Section 5 of the Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, says: `An Ombudsman may be removed from office through Supreme Judicial Council on the grounds of being incapable of properly performing duties of his office by reason of physical or mental incapacity or found to have been guilty of misconduct.

Mr Sukhera challenged his dismissalbefore the IHC. He assailed the notification of June 12 that informed him about withdrawal of the notification of his appointment against the post of FTO in August last year.

His counsel argued before the court that the appointment and removal of FTO is governed under the establishment of the Office of FTO Ordinance, 2000, and the Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act, 2013.

She referred to Section 6(2) of the Ordinance of 2000 and Section 5 of the Act of 2013. In support of her contention that once the FTO has been appointed and takes oath, his removal can only be made through the Supreme Judicial Council.

ThehighcourthadonJune14suspended Mr Sukhera`s termination and sought a reply from the federal government.

On Tuesday, additionalattorney general Sajid Ilyas Bhatti appeared before the court and argued that the FTO`s appointment was the sole discretion of the president. However, in Mushtaq Sukhera`s case `the appointment was made on the advice of the federal cabinet or the prime minister.` He said that the appointment was made on the advice of the PM and therefore, it is void.

Justice Minallah pointed out that the appointment of federal ombudsman, ombudsman for the protection against harassment of women at the workplace, chairman, director of State Life Insurance, appointments in the State Bank of Pakistan have been made through the advice of the PM what would be the fate of these appointments then.

Mr Bhatti replied that the government had removed the FTO only.

The court then asked `whether the appointments made against the post of FTO on the advice of the PM since promulgation of the [FTOJ Ordinance of 2000 were also void. If so then what would be the status of recommendations, orders passed or convictions and sentences handed down by the incumbents of the posts of FTO since 2000.

The additional attorney general could not respond to the court`s queries and sought time to conclude the arguments instead.

Subsequently the court extended the stay order issued against the termination of Mr Sukhera`s services and adjourned hearing till Aug 8.