ISLAMABAD: The Prime Minister’s dissatisfaction with the affairs of the Engineering Development Board (EDB) is reportedly the primary reason behind the suspension of its Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Raza Abbas Shah. However, despite several months having passed since the suspension, neither the Ministry of Industries and Production (MoI&P) nor any other office has taken steps to reverse the Prime Minister’s decision.
This issue was thoroughly discussed by the Board of Management (BoM) of EDB in October 2024, under the chairmanship of Arif Saeed. The meeting opened with a discussion on the potential restoration of the suspended CEO, Raza Abbas Shah. Acting CEO, KB Ali, briefed the Board that the meeting had been adjourned on September 30, 2024, and that the Board had requested the viewpoint of the highest authority at MoI&P regarding the matter. As a result, the meeting could not be reconvened on its scheduled dates, October 7 and 14, 2024, due to unavoidable circumstances. The Board Secretary explained that the Secretary of MoI&P was preoccupied with urgent government assignments.
The Chairman pointed out that the minutes of the adjourned meeting had been issued without including the opinions of two independent Board members. He instructed the Secretary to include their views in the final minutes. The Chairman also noted that audit observations raised against EDB’s accounts had not been shared with the Board. The Secretary clarified that such audit paras had been shared with the Ministry, which then addresses them through the Departmental Accounts Committee (DAC) and Public Accounts Committee (PAC) according to established procedures. The Secretary, being the Principal Accounting Officer, represents the organization in these forums.
The Chairman observed that since the annual budget had been approved by both the Finance & Audit Committee and the Board before being submitted to MoI&P and the Ministry of Finance for final approval, the audit paras should have been presented to the Committee prior to submission to the Ministry.
Turning to the main issue, the Chairman emphasized that the unresolved agenda item—the restoration of the suspended CEO—required immediate attention. He requested an update on the follow-up actions regarding the unanimous decision made by the Board to restore the CEO, who had not been formally charged or given an opportunity to defend himself. A representative from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST) suggested that a Ministry representative would be in a better position to address the issue. A Senior Joint Secretary from the Ministry of Finance (MoF) confirmed that audit paras are typically addressed by the concerned Ministry’s Principal Accounting Officer in relevant audit forums, such as DAC and PAC, but in this case, the Ministry was in the best position to update the Board.
The Chairman argued that for the Board to function effectively, it must have proper authority. Referring to the Government’s Gazette notification No. 4(37) PD/I&C/97, dated November 7, 1997, and the EDB Rules of Business, the Chairman noted that the Government of Pakistan is the appointing authority for the CEO. However, the appointment of the current CEO on a “look-after” basis raised questions about the legal basis for this action. Specifically, it was unclear which enabling provision the Ministry relied upon for such an appointment without seeking advice or a recommendation from the Board or the Government of Pakistan, as mandated by the relevant Supreme Court ruling.
The Secretary to the Board clarified that the CEO was on a “look-after” arrangement and that such appointments had been made in the past without issue. The Chairman again questioned the legal grounds for this “look-after” arrangement. The acting CEO responded that the Ministry had assigned him the charge with the approval of the Federal Minister. The Chairman suggested that, in the absence of a clear legal provision, the matter should be referred to the Law Division for a formal opinion on whether the Federal Minister or the Cabinet was competent to make such temporary appointments.
JS, MoST, stated that, as per established practice, a Federal Secretary, with the approval of the Federal Minister, can grant “look-after” charge. He recommended that the Ministry inform the Board about the legal position in this regard. He added that the Board could make recommendations to the Ministry, which would refer the matter to the Law Division.
Yousuf Mirza raised concerns about the audit paras, which had only recently come to light, being used as a justification for the CEO’s ongoing suspension. He argued that audit paras are routine matters typically handled by the management of the organization, and that such issues should not require a suspension. He expressed that the Board was being undermined, and the real reasons for the CEO’s suspension had not been shared. He further emphasized the unfairness of denying the CEO an opportunity to defend himself. In his view, the matter had dragged on for too long and needed to be resolved quickly. There was also a need for transparency regarding the reasons behind the suspension, as this uncertainty was negatively impacting the organization’s functioning.
JS, MoIP, confirmed that the audit paras were not the cause of the suspension. He explained that the Prime Minister, as the competent authority for the CEO’s appointment, would also need to restore the CEO’s services. The suspension was a result of proceedings at a meeting held at the PM Secretariat, chaired by the Prime Minister, and based on advice from the Board. While the Ministry had raised the issue with the relevant authorities, the matter remained unresolved.
Aftab Haider, CEO of PSW, inquired whether the CEO’s position had been filled under the MP Scale Policy. The JS clarified that while the CEO position was an MP-scale position, the appointment was not made under the MP Policy. Aftab Haider expressed concerns that the CEO had been unfairly treated, as no charges had been framed against him, nor had he been given an opportunity to defend himself. He agreed with the Chairman’s concerns that if the Board had no say in the appointment or restoration of the CEO, it rendered the Board ineffective.
Regarding the process of the CEO’s appointment, the JS, MoIP, explained that as per policy, a committee is responsible for shortlisting candidates, after which a summary is moved to the Prime Minister through the Establishment Division. Upon approval, the Prime Minister notifies the appointment. According to the Civil Servant Act, the competent authority—here, the Prime Minister—has the power to appoint, suspend, or reinstate a CEO. The EDB Board, he clarified, is merely a recommending body.
The Chairman noted with regret the Ministry’s failure to act on the Board’s unanimous resolution from the 58th meeting held on July 25, 2024. He expressed concern over the Board’s time being wasted and the undermining of the organization’s functioning. The Board reaffirmed its earlier resolution and strongly urged the Ministry to resolve the impasse.
