 
 
 
THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, HCJ 
 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM 
 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
 
 
Suo Motu case No.17 of 2016. 
(Action taken by this Court to examine the vires of Section 25(a) of the NAB Ordinance.   
  
 
In Attendance: 
 
 
Mr Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Attorney General for  
 
 
 
 
 
Pakistan. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Aamir Rehman, Addl.A.G. 
 
 
 
 
 
Barrister Asad Rehman, Consultant to A.G 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr Waqas Qadeer Dar, PG, NAB 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. Azam, DPG, NAB. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr Imranul Haq, Spl. Prosecutor NAB. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr Abdul Latif Yousafzai, AG, KPK. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr Ayaz Swati, Addl.A.G, Balochistan. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr Zamir Hussain Ghumro, A.G, Sindh. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr Sheharyar Qazi, Addl.A.G, Sindh. 
 
 
 
 
 
Akhtar Rehana, Addl.P.G Sindh. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr Asjad Javed Ghural, Addl.P.G. Punjab. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr Mudassar Khalid Abbbasi, Asstt.A.G, 
 
 
 
 
 
Punjab. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr Asad Kharral, Applicant in CMA  
 
 
 
 
 
No.6374 of 2016. 
 
 
Date of hearing 
 
 
24.10.2016.  
 
    ORDER 
 
 
 
 
AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.- This Court on 02.09.2016, during 
hearing of Civil Appeal No.82-K of 2015,  noticed abuse of authority by the 
NAB while taking cognizance of petty matters in terms of Section 9 of the 
National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 
Ordinance). The Ordinance was primarily legislated to counter the cases of 
mega scandals and initiate proceedings against the accused persons who are 
involved in scandals of mega corruption and corrupt practices.  
Suo Motu Case No.17/16. 
2 
2. 
 
The Court also noticed that in terms of Section 25(a) of the 
Ordinance, the NAB authorities after issuance of call up notices suggest to 
the accused that they may opt to come forward with the offer of voluntary 
return of the amounts that have allegedly been acquired or earned illegally 
by them. Section 25 (a) (ibid) empowers the Chairman, NAB, to accept such 
voluntary returns made by the accused persons, the amount is deposited with 
NAB in installments at the discretion of the Chairman, NAB. Alarmingly, on 
payment of certain portion of the amount, such person is given clean chit by 
the NAB to rejoin his job. The frequent exercise of powers under Section 25 
(a) (ibid) by the NAB on one side has multiplied the corruption usurping the 
jurisdiction of the F.I.A and Anti-Corruption agencies and defeated the 
object of the Ordinance on the other hand. In this regard the matter was 
referred by a Bench of this Court to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan, 
for examining the vires of Section 25(a) (ibid) vis-à-vis un-bridled powers of 
the Chairman, NAB to accept the offer of voluntary return from a person 
regardless of the size of the amount by any mode adopted at his discretion 
which falls within the domain of the judiciary. The matter was placed before 
the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court, who directed the office to fix the 
matter in Court, treating it as a Petition under Article 184 (3) of the 
Constitution. On 02.09.2016, the NAB authorities were further directed to 
provide the following details  
(i) 
The list of the cases in which NAB authorities are conducting enquiries and  
investigations  and or references pending in the NAB Courts, involving an 
amount of less than Rs.100 Million; 
 
(ii) 
The list of the persons, civil servants and or public servants, to be provided by 
relevant departments of the Governments and or State owned organizations, who 
entered into Voluntary Return.  
 
(iii) 
The action which the Federal/Provincial Governments and or statutory 
organizations have taken against their employees after their offer of Voluntary 
Return was accepted by NAB in terms of Section 25(a) of the NAB Ordinance. 
Suo Motu Case No.17/16. 
3 
 
3. 
 
On 28.09.2016, the matter was adjourned at the request of the 
learned Law Officers of the Federation and the Provinces as well as the 
NAB authorities for today. In response to the order dated 02.09.2016, the 
required reports have been submitted by the Federal Government and the 
Provincial Governments. The NAB has also filed its report as 
C.M.A.No.6376 of 2016, giving details of the persons who have offered 
voluntary return of the monetary gains that they acquired through corrupt 
practices and such offer was accepted by the Chairman, NAB. From the 
reports submitted by the Federal Government and the respective Provincial 
Governments, it appears that no departmental action has been taken against 
the 
officers/employees 
of 
different 
organizations 
including 
Govt. 
departments, who had voluntarily returned illegally acquired monetary 
gains, which is very unfortunate. Once a person accused of corruption or 
corrupt practices volunteers to offer to return the amount he has pocketed or 
gained 
through 
illegal 
means, 
prima 
facie, 
cannot 
hold 
any 
Government/Public Office, as the very act of his offering the voluntary 
return falls within the definition of “misconduct” under the service law and 
calls for initiation of disciplinary action against the accused person(s). The 
report filed by the NAB mentions that hundreds of employees/civil servants 
and others who have voluntarily returned the amounts in terms of Section 
25(a) (ibid) are still enjoying their office, without being exposed to any 
departmental proceedings which has further multiplied the corruption in the 
country.    
 
4. 
 
This inaction on the part of the departmental authorities towards 
the accused has patronized corruption, by providing a window to the NAB as 
Suo Motu Case No.17/16. 
4 
well to the employees, who plunder public money and after paying back a 
portion of the alleged amount of corruption/corrupt practice continue in their 
jobs.  
 
5. 
 
Primarily, the concept of voluntary return under the Ordinance, 
was confined to those accused against whom the proceedings were yet to 
start and they, on their own, had approached the NAB authorities by offering 
the voluntary return of the amounts illegally gained or acquired by them. 
This concept, however, was side tracked and instead the accused persons 
against whom call up notices were issued on the strength of some complaint 
or otherwise are extended favours by the NAB under the garb of Section 
25(a) which was never intended for.  
 
6. 
 
In the given circumstances, what has further disturbed us is that 
the amounts so collected by the NAB in installments or otherwise is not 
being deposited in its entirety with the concerned Government/Department 
forthwith, instead some of the amount under the garb of Rules or otherwise 
is retained by the NAB authorities for distribution to its official towards 
award. 
 
7. 
 
We inquired from the Prosecutor General, NAB, to provide us 
the details of the amounts of voluntary return recovered from different 
accused persons and details of its deposit. The P.G, NAB, states that no 
amount is withheld by the NAB authorities for distribution to its officers 
who conduct the investigation of the cases as award.  
 
8. 
 
The NAB shall provide us the details of the amounts which they 
have collected from accused persons, during the last 10 years and the 
Suo Motu Case No.17/16. 
5 
amounts which they have deposited with the different Governments. These 
details should reach this Court by 05.11.2016 positively. Likewise, the 
Attorney General for Pakistan as well as the Advocate Generals of the 
Provinces shall handover the copies of C.M.A.No.6376 filed by the NAB to 
the Secretary, Establishment Division and the Chief Secretaries of all the 
four provinces, who in turn shall ensure initiation of departmental 
proceedings against the accused persons mentioned therein who have 
voluntarily returned the amounts under Section 25(a) of the Ordinance, 
besides they shall further provide the details of the amounts which different 
departments have received from the NAB in terms of Section 25(a) (ibid).  
 
9. 
 
We, therefore, direct the Secretary, Establishment Division and 
all the Chief Secretaries of the Provinces to ensure initiation of departmental 
proceedings forthwith against the employees mentioned in C.M.A.No.6376 
of 2016 who have voluntarily returned the amounts in terms of Section 25 
(a) (ibid), without further loss of time and report compliance.   
 
10. 
 
In the meanwhile, the Chairman, NAB, or any other Officer 
authorized by him in this behalf, is restrained from accepting any offer of 
voluntary return in terms of Section 25(a) of the Ordinance. The office is 
directed to re-list the matter on 07.11.2016.  
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
 
Judge  
Islamabad the,  
24th October, 2016.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Not approved for reporting.  
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Sohail/**         
