On December 16, the single member bench headed by Justice Riaz Ahmed had ordered the restoration of Chaudhry Rasheed Ahmed suspending a notification issued by the establishment division on his removal from the post.
In the appeal, the federation opined that Chaudhry Rasheed had not come to the court with clean hand as he had concealed the actual facts.
It was contended that Chairman PEMRA was removed on December 16 through a notification, petition was drafted, filed and fixed on the same day. Even the interim order on the suspension of the notification was also announced the same day.
The federation pointed out that even the petitioner had not attached the notification on his removal along with the petition.
The government pleaded that the respondent Chaudhry Rasheed was guilty of misconduct when summary of Chairman PEMRA with the signature of Chaudhry Rasheed was moved by himself through the Establishment Division while he was performing the duties of the Secretary Information and Broadcasting.
At that time, Establishment Division had opined that Chaudhry Rasheed was not eligible to be appointed as PEMRA head.
However, he got his summary approved from the Prime Minister and President detaching the Establishment Division's summary from his file, the ICA added.
Moreover, the appointing authority was misled at the time of submission of summary for appointment as Chairman PEMRA with the result that the appointment was illegal and void intio,ICA maintained.
The government also argued that the appointment of Chaudhry Rasheed was also in violation of section 10 of PEMRA Ordinance 2002 that forbids the chairman of engaging in any other employment.
Chaudhry Rasheed was notified for appointment as Chairman PEMRA four months before his retirement from government service.
The ICA further stated that under the provision of law it was not required that action could be taken for removal of service after conducting inquiry or issuance of show cause notice, therefore it was not incumbent upon the Authority to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Chaudhry Rasheed.
The respondent did not have the qualifications for appointment as the Chairman as provided in section 6 of PEMRA Ordinance.
