46 Passport officials overstay foreign postings, audit flags irregular payments
Islamabad: Forty six officers and employees of the Directorate General Immigration and Passports remained posted at Pakistani missions abroad after completing their allowed three year tenure, while audit declared salaries, allowances and other benefits paid after the expiry of their foreign assignments irregular and unauthorized.
The issue triggered strong criticism in the Public Accounts Committee, where members demanded to know why the officials were not called back and who was responsible for failing to implement the approved policy.
The existing foreign posting policy clearly states that Immigration and Passport staff sent to Pakistani missions abroad are to serve for 36 months. The policy states this period is not extendable. It further states that the posting automatically ends after 36 months and pay should stop at that point.
The replacement process is also required to begin at least one year before an official completes the foreign posting so that passport operations at missions are not disturbed. Audit found that the department did not follow these requirements. The department provided a list of 46 officials and employees who had served at different Pakistani missions abroad.
The locations included Dubai, Jeddah, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Muscat, Doha, Kuwait, Milan, London, Barcelona, Paris, Rome, Frankfurt, Manchester, Toronto, New York, Madrid, Hong Kong, Washington, Sydney, Chicago, Berlin, Bangkok, Copenhagen, Los Angeles, Stockholm, Tokyo, Tehran and Vancouver.
Audit said the officials had not returned to Pakistan after completion of their foreign assignments. It also said management had failed to arrange their replacements in time. According to the audit, payments of salaries, allowances and other benefits after the completion of the approved foreign posting period were irregular and unauthorized.
Audit said failure to follow the foreign posting policy violated instructions issued by the Establishment Division and the Ministry of Interior. It recommended an investigation to determine responsibility and called for regularizing the period during which the officials remained abroad beyond their approved tenure.
The matter became more controversial during discussion before the Public Accounts Committee. Members repeatedly asked Immigration and Passport officials why the employees were not recalled after completing three years. Officials said the staff had originally been posted under the existing policy.
They explained that proposals for a new policy had later been sent to the Ministry of Interior but had not been finalized. Committee members were not satisfied with that explanation. They argued that until a new policy was formally approved, the existing policy remained binding.
Members said government departments could not stop following an approved policy simply because another policy was being prepared. One member said the rules had to be followed as written and officials could not decide for themselves whether an approved policy was right or wrong.
The member said a clear violation had taken place because the officials remained abroad after their tenure without proper regularization or recall. Questions were also raised over who had the authority to approve any extension when the existing policy itself described the foreign posting period as non extendable.
Members said the matter may have required approval from a higher forum if the government wanted to keep the officials abroad after their original tenure expired. The committee also questioned why the department had not started the replacement process before the officials completed their assignments.
Officials acknowledged during the discussion that requests concerning replacements and policy changes were sent after some tenures had already ended. Members pointed out that the department already knew from the start that every foreign posting would end after three years.
They therefore questioned why replacement planning was not started earlier. Criticism sharpened when members discussed the scale of the issue. The committee was told that the matter involved 46 officials, not one or two exceptional cases.
One member remarked that it appeared as if a large part of the department was enjoying extended stays outside the country. Another member said the handling of the policy showed a troubling level of carelessness and called for the case to be treated as an example so that other departments do not ignore government rules in the same way.
A further concern involved the money spent on officials after their approved tenure had ended. One committee member argued that if the officials were staying abroad in violation of the policy, questions would also arise about the legality of expenditure on their salaries, allowances and other benefits during that extra period.
The member said the matter could not be solved simply by deciding whether to call the officials back or allow them to remain abroad. The period already spent beyond the approved tenure would also have to be regularized through the proper authority. The Interior Secretary acknowledged that the policy had not been implemented and suggested taking the matter to the appropriate forum for regularization.
He also said approval from the Finance Division could be needed for expenditure incurred during the additional period. Officials suggested that the Cabinet or another competent authority might have to decide how to treat the overstayed period.
Management had earlier told the Departmental Accounts Committee that the foreign posting policy was under review. It also said the Interior Minister had approved the continuation of currently posted officials until their replacements joined.
According to management, official passports could also be renewed under the relevant rules to avoid legal complications in host countries. Audit did not accept this explanation as a settlement of the objection.
It maintained that the existing approved policy had been violated because the revised policy had not yet been finalized and the continued foreign postings were unauthorized under the policy that remained in force. Committee members also stressed that responsibility could not simply disappear once the overstay was regularized.
They said officials who failed to implement the approved foreign posting policy should also be identified. The committee called for accountability from those who allowed the situation to continue. Members also demanded a transparent selection process for replacement officials.
They said employees whose tenure had already expired should be brought back according to the existing rules while new staff should be selected and posted through the proper procedure. The ministry was given two weeks to provide written answers.
The committee sought details on who was responsible for the violation, how replacement officials would be selected, how the extra posting periods could be regularized and which authority would approve the expenditure already incurred. The audit objection therefore remains unresolved.
