Data Darbar officials’ appeals rejected

Data Darbar officials’ appeals rejected

LAHORE: Chief Secretary Punjab Zahid Akhtar Zaman has rejected the appeals of former Data Darbar Administrator Jameel Ahmed and former Manager Tahir Maqsood against disciplinary penalties imposed over alleged financial irregularities involving cash-box collections.

The chief secretary exercised his powers under Section 16 of the PEEDA Act, 2006, after reviewing the appeals, inquiry report, case record and findings of the designated hearing officer.

The Auqaf and Religious Affairs Department had penalised Jameel Ahmed on June 2, 2026, by reducing him to a lower post and pay scale for five years, forfeiting five years of past service and ordering recovery of Rs9.265 million. Tahir Maqsood was dismissed from service and directed to pay Rs11.325 million.

Member-IV (Inquiries), S&GAD Imtiaz Ahmed served as the hearing officer. He provided both officials an opportunity to present their cases and examined their submissions along with the available evidence.

The appellants argued that cash-box collections had declined compared with the previous year. They also maintained that officials opened the cash boxes in the presence of the Cash Boxes Committee and questioned why other relevant officials were not included in the proceedings.

However, the hearing officer found that the appellants failed to present substantive evidence to counter the material available on record.

According to the departmental findings, cash-box receipts had shown an unusual and sustained decline during the previous administrative period. Collections subsequently increased significantly after the department introduced centralized monitoring from headquarters.

The inquiry also examined allegations involving unauthorized withdrawals from cash boxes, misuse or leakage of CCTV footage and other related irregularities.

A two-member inquiry committee, comprising the Director General Religious Affairs, Auqaf Punjab, and Director Finance, Auqaf Punjab, investigated the matter. It found three of the four charges fully proved and the fourth partially proved, and recommended disciplinary action.

After reviewing the entire record and the hearing officer’s findings, the chief secretary concluded that the appellants had failed to substantiate their positions or effectively challenge the evidence.

The appeals were therefore rejected as lacking merit and not supported by the record.