ISLAMABAD: The Power Division is reportedly caught in a catch-22 situation regarding the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of power Generation Companies (Gencos) who were appointed on a contractual basis and are currently under suspension. Influential groups are said to be lobbying for their reinstatement, well-informed sources told Newzshewz on Sunday.
The suspended CEOs were initially appointed on contract, and according to applicable rules, their contracts should have been terminated in cases of misconduct or poor performance. However, contrary to legal provisions, these CEOs were suspended while continuing to draw full salaries, perks, and benefits. This not only violates established procedures but also places an undue financial burden on the national exchequer, the sources added.
“Further compounding the issue,” sources continued, “are reports suggesting that the reinstatement of these CEOs is being facilitated through alleged under-the-table deals and internal connections within the Power Division.” This is particularly troubling, given that many of the power plants under their charge are scheduled for decommissioning—making their return to leadership roles both unnecessary and questionable. Such actions appear to serve personal interests over the public good, potentially enabling further exploitation of Pakistan’s already strained resources.
On April 14, 2025, Faiz Muhammad Khatian, Manager (HR & Admin) at CPGCL TPS Guddu, wrote a letter to the Power Division. He stated that it had been repeatedly directed by the Board of Directors (BoD) of CPGCL (GENCO-II) to clarify the suspension of Junaid Ahmed Baig, the former CEO of CPGCL (GENCO-II). Baig was suspended with BoD approval on December 20, 2024, following directives from the Prime Minister conveyed by the Power Division on December 19, 2024.
The letter emphasized that more than three months (90 days) had passed since the suspension, and according to WAPDA’s E&D Rules—also followed by CPGCL—continued suspension beyond three months requires prior approval from a higher authority.
Under Rule 5(i) of the Employees (E&D) Rules 1978, a competent authority may suspend an employee accused of subversion, corruption, or misconduct. However, continuation of such suspension must be approved by the next higher authority every three months. The Manager HR & Admin argued that either such approval was not obtained in time or was not pursued properly, thereby violating this rule.
“All competent authorities should ensure that enquiry cases involving suspended employees or those on forced leave are finalized within three months,” the letter states. “If proceedings are not completed within this period, extension of suspension or leave should be approved well in advance to avoid legal complications.”
Moreover, the letter notes that the officer in question is receiving full pay and allowances during suspension—payments that now exceed his gratuity. If the officer is not reinstated and instead terminated (as per the contract terms which do not allow suspension of contractual employees), the recoverability of the paid amount could become a serious audit concern. The HR Manager has sought further guidance from the Power Division on how to proceed with the suspended CEO of Guddu.
Meanwhile, insiders claim that some suspended Genco CEOs are frequently seen in the corridors of the Power Division, seeking influence to secure favorable outcomes. However, sources believe the newly constituted Boards of Gencos are unlikely to retain the suspended CEOs any further.
Ends
