To

The Secretary,
(Hearing Officer) Cooperative Department,
Govt. of Punjab
Lahore

Subject: REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 16 Of/ PEEI)A ACT

2006 AGAINST ORDER DATED 02.11.20022 FILED BY DR.
MUHAMMAD SALEEM LAGIIARI AJ'MP/BS-19 EXCEO DHA
MULTAN ADDITIONAL CllARGE AND EXDHO(PS), MULTAN

Respected Madam,

l . With utmost regard it is humbly submitted that vide office order: SO(iNQ)

l18/2020(P) dated 23.01.2023 by the issued Primary and Secondary Health

Care Department you are nominated hearing office by the competent authority

of the subject cited above

''Brief facts as mentioned below please:

• Vide office order dated 18.06.2020 a probe committee has been constituted

by the Department to probe the allegations of financial and moral corruption

relating to petitioner during his tenure as Acting Chief Executive Officer,

District Health Authority (DHA) Multan.

• Afterward in the light of recommendations made by inquiry officer dated

01.07.2021 your kind-self was pleased to dismiss the petitioner from

service by means of an order passed on 02.11.2022. copied of record are

annex-A to.

• The petitioner requests for recalling of said order inter-alia on the

following among other

 GROUNDS
i. That the punishment has been awarded beyond the scope of order of inquiry. As

per office order dated 18.06.2020, the probe was to be conducted for a definite

period only with regard to the tenure of petitioner as Chief Executive officer

(DHA), Multan. He served in such capacity W.E.F to

16.06.2020 while he has been held guilty for illegal expenditure of Rs.2.3

million in respect of procurement made between 16.03.2020 to 10.04.2()20 the

petitioner whereas served as Additional Chief Executive Officer from

01.05.2020 to 16.06.2020 thus he could not be penalized for the alleged

irregularities in the aforesaid procurement.

The allegation of illegal expenditure of LP Medicine by the office of District

Health Officer (DHO) Multan could not be attributed to petitioner. As this

purchase was conducted by the DHO (Preventive Services). The DHO office

has its own independent budget and costs centre. The DHO is vested with (its

own) DDO powers he made said purchase by exercising his own DDO powers.

It is noteworthy that no Advance Audit Para has been pointed out regarding

the said purchase during the Annual Audit for the year 2020-2021. The

petitioner as CEO did not play any role in the above procurement made by the

0/0 DHO, hence he could not be charged for irregularity, if any, in the said

local purchase.

iii. The charge of payment of full basic salary instead of half basic salary as

Honorarium to some employees is without foundation. The petitioner on the

proposal of Budget Officer DHA, Multan sanctioned the half basic salary as

Honorarium to encourage the employees for their performance to combat

 Covid-19 as per his financial powers. Whereas Mr. Anjum Nazir Accountant,
CEO, DHA, Multan with his initials sanctioned the bills of full salary in his

favour along with ()4 other employees which caused a total loss of approximate

Rs.72,()0()/- to Government, which can be recovered by the agency of District

Accounts Officer, Mtlltan and disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against

concerned Accountant.

iv. The allegation of issuing, different orders by the petitioner after the

assumption of charge by the new CEO is baseless, the petitioner after

relinquishing the charge of CEO after never issued any order.

v. The probe committee without associating the petitioner conducted the probe

proceedings in a causal and colorful manner.

vi. The probe committee as well as while holding regular inquiry proceedings the

Inquiry Officer, 1.0, went beyond the mandate given to him by the competent

authority and instead of interrogating the allegation relating to the office of

CEO(DHA) Multan also included the affairs of the DHO (P&S) Multan,

which was infact not the mandate of inquiry orders nor the authority

authorized to the 1.0 look into the allegation beyond the tenure of petitioner as

CEO, DHA, Multan The affairs of the DHO was not part of proceedings of

enquires.

vii. The allegation of financial irregularities in Covid-19 procurement is without

any substance. Because the amount was incurred on Covid-19 procurement by

the DHO office. More so no specific budget for said procurement, was
 provided for the Covid-19 procurement. This procurement was carried on

emergent basis to save the EPI staff from the pandemic out of regular budget

0/0 DHO Multan. In compliance of the letter dated 01 issued by the

Director General Health Punjab. The petitioner has not committed any

irregularity during the whole process.

viii. The allegation of only one requisition for multiple items is denied the articles on
warfare basis therefore routine purchase was not possible. elhe Disaster

Management Authority PDMA vide letter dated 19.03.2020 has relaxed the PPRA

Rules 2014 to purchase Covid items and directed to invoke Rule

59(c)(v) of ibid Rules in view of sensational nature of the matter.

ix. There was no malafide on part of petitioner in not taking comparative analysis.

Infact due to horror of covid. It was not possible for any state organ to run the

professional business by observing the routine procedural Rules.

The petitioner however as a due care got comparative statement of the firms to

ensure purchase at minimum prices. As per PPRA Rules market analysis is not a

requirement on the purchase of items less than Rs.50,000/- whereas comparative

study was conducted under PPRA Rules on required items above the value of

Rs.50,000/-. The comparative statements were submitted but the

1.0 has not considered the same.

x. The allegation of non-holding physical inspection by the inspection committee is

based on presumptions. The members of inspection committee inspected the items

on 16.03.2020 and duly signed the inspection report. The 1.0 without any reason

merely on account of his personal wisdom observed that the inspection report is

doubtful due to non inspection.

 The allegation of giving up the distribution plan is not valid. The Distribution is

not pre-requisite on covid items, disbursement was made as per stock register

maintained by the store keeper concerned. The copies of stockRegister

produced before the inquiry officer were not considered the allegation

of not maintaining the stock register properly is not related to the petitioner which

can be better explained by the custodian of stock register.

xii. The allegation of non-provision of Cash Book with the connivance responsible

for procurement of furniture as the subject furniture was purchased by the

previous CEO.

xiii. The allegation of purchase of LP Medicine without rate contract in month of

June 2020 is denied. There was acute short fall of medicine in pandemic

situation. The M.Os of BHUS were asking for supply of medicine through

written demand. Because in the last year the Ex-CEO (DIIA) remained fail to

conduct bulk purchase. Moreover the items purchased by the petitioner were

not existed in the list of rate contract for the year 2019-2020 (bulk purchase of

medicine). The petitioner got approval from the Deputy Commissioner

Administrator (DHA), Multan for emergency purchase of essential items in

good faith to save the life of public after observing codal formalities.

xiv. The allegation of procurement form specific vendor i.e. M/S Rizwan Medicine

and Medicine City, Multan is not correct the purchase was made after calling

quotation from different companies and those companies were chosen who

offered lower rates than to other competitors.

xv. The allegation of non-comparative analysis is denied the comparative analysis

was made with District Khanewal.

xvi. The allegation of maladministration in respect of medical leaves allowances

regularization of contract employees are denied the employees were regularized

under Rule 17-A in the light of Notification of the Government and Law of

Hon'ble High Court.

 of not maintaining the stock register properly is not related to the petitioner

which can be better explained by the custodian of stock register.

xii. The allegation of non-provision of Cash Book with the connivance responsible

for procurement of furniture as the subject furniture was purchased by the

previous CEO.

xiii. The allegation of purchase of LP Medicine without rate contract in month of

June 2020 is denied. There was acute short fall of medicine in pandemic

situation. The M.Os of BHUS were asking for supply of medicine through

written demand. Because in the last year the Ex-CEO (DIIA) remained fail to

conduct bulk purchase. Moreover the items purchased by the petitioner were

not existed in the list of rate contract for the year 2019-2020 (bulk purchase of

medicine). The petitioner got approval from the Deputy Commissioner

Administrator (DHA), Multan for emergency purchase of essential items in

good faith to save the life of public after observing codal formalities.

xiv. The allegation of procurement form specific vendor i.e. M/S Rizwan Medicine

and Medicine City, Multan is not correct the purchase was made after calling

quotation from different companies and those companies were chosen who

offered lower rates than to other competitors.

xv. The allegation of non-comparative analysis is denied the comparative analysis

was made with District Khanewal.

xvi. The allegation of maladministration in respect of medical leaves allowances

regularization of contract employees are denied the employees were

regularized under Rule 17-A in the light of Notification of the Government and

Law of Hon'ble High Court.

 of not maintaining the stock register properly is not related to the petitioner which

can be better explained by the custodian of stock register.

xii. The allegation of non-provision of Cash Book with the connivance responsible for

procurement of furniture as the subject furniture was purchased by the previous

CEO.

xiii. The allegation of purchase of LP Medicine without rate contract in month of

June 2020 is denied. There was acute short fall of medicine in pandemic

situation. The M.Os of BHUS were asking for supply of medicine through

written demand. Because in the last year the Ex-CEO (DHA) remained fail to

conduct bulk purchase. Moreover the items purchased by the petitioner were

not existed in the list of rate contract for the year 2019-2020 (bulk purchase of

medicine). The petitioner got approval from the Deputy Commissioner /

Administrator (DHA), Multan for emergency purchase of essential items in

good faith to save the life of public after observing codal formalities.

xiv. The allegation of procurement form specific vendor i.e. M/S Rizwan

Medicine and Medicine City, Multan is not correct the purchase was made

after calling quotation from different companies and those companies were

chosen who offered lower rates than to other competitors.

xv. The allegation of non-comparative analysis is denied the comparative

analysis was made with District Khanewal.

xvi. The allegation of maladministration in respect of medical leaves

allowances regularization of contract employees are denied the

employees were regularized under Rule 17-A in the light of Notification

of the Government and Law of Hon'ble High Court.

 xvii. The accusation of immoral activities, sexual harassment to the LIIV Miss

Muqaddas Ali is velemently denied this allegation is result of initiating disciplinary

proceedings against the said LIIV on account of différent news published in the

newspaper Aghaz-Safar Multan on 30.()5.2020 the accused tady cooked up a fake

story of harassment to avoid the proceedings against her, she moved complaint of

harassment after initiation of proceedings which is clear malafide on the part of

LHV.

xviii. The applicant performed his duties in District Multan honestly with all sincerity

he was expecting appreciation for serving day and night in chronic situation but to

structure fake charges ping pong has been collected, xix. The inquiry officer did not

consider such record supplied by the petitioner which resulted to serious miscarriage of

justice. xx. During the course of inquires proper right of defence was not offered to

petitioner he was not confronted the adverse material so much so with regard to the

genuineness of alleged record produced against petitioner the statement of any concerned

author or custodian of record were not produced as witness nor petitioner was provided

right of cross examination to dig out the truth. The petitioner has been condemned

unheard in disregard of Article 10. A of the Constitution.

xx. The co-accused have been exonerated so as to burden the petitioner.

xxi. The petitioner infact have been penalized due to late resuming of charge to

Dr. Arshad Malik CEO which annoyed to the worthy Secretary, the said

Dr. was posted as CEO vide order dated 14.05.2020 who was allowed to

join his office on 17.06.2020 by the Deputy Commissioner Multan /

Administrator of DHA

Multan this delay annoyed to the Authority.

This aspect of the matter find support from the fact that the Authority

moto started inquiry against petitioner in the absence or any written

complaint or allegation raised from public or private sector.

PRAYER:

It is thus requested that by accepting this petition and order

issued by the Primary and Secondary Department

02.11.2022 for dismissal of petitioner from service kindly

restore with back benefits and may be Exonerated it is

single first lapse in my whole service of 30 years.

My dismissal order may be recalled and the petitioner be

restored to his job, in the meanwhile the operation of the afore

said order may please be suspended.

Dated:08/02/2023

With Best Regards

Dr. M Saleem Akbar Laghari

Ex-Chief Executive Officer,
Multan Additional Charge
And Ex-DHO (PS) Multan.0300-7349269