Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman)

Order, 1983
Introduction
The Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983, may rightly be
called Pakistan’s first charter of administrative accountability and holds significant importance in
the legal and administrative framework of Pakistan. Enacted to address grievances against
maladministration and to uphold the principles of justice, this act marked a crucial milestone in
the country's governance structure.
Envisioned as a mechanism to ensure accountability and transparency in public offices, the
Wafaqi Mohtasib Order aimed to provide citizens with a platform to voice their concerns against
government actions. The term "Wafaqi Mohtasib" translates to "Federal Ombudsman,"
reflecting the national scope of its jurisdiction.
The primary objective of the order was to establish an independent and impartial institution to
investigate complaints related to administrative injustices, abuse of power, and neglect of duty
by federal government agencies. This quasi-judicial body was designed to operate
independently of the government, ensuring its autonomy and effectiveness in addressing public
grievances.
One of the key features of the Wafaqi Mohtasib Order was the appointment of a Federal
Ombudsman, a high-ranking official entrusted with the responsibility of overseeing the
institution's functions. The Ombudsman's role was to act as a neutral adjudicator, mediating
between the government and the aggrieved citizens to resolve disputes and rectify injustices.
The order outlined the jurisdiction of the Wafaqi Mohtasib, specifying the types of complaints it
could entertain. These encompassed a wide range of issues, including administrative delays,
unfair treatment, corruption, and violations of legal procedures. By providing an accessible
avenue for citizens to seek redress, the order aimed to enhance public trust in government
institutions.
Furthermore, the Wafaqi Mohtasib Order outlined the procedures for filing complaints,
ensuring a systematic and transparent process. It empowered the Ombudsman to conduct
investigations, summon officials, and issue recommendations. While the recommendations
were not binding, they carried significant moral weight, compelling government agencies to
address and rectify the identified issues.
Over the years, the Wafaqi Mohtasib has played a vital role in promoting good governance by
holding public officials accountable for their actions. The institution has contributed to the
development of a responsive and responsible bureaucracy, fostering a culture of accountability
within government agencies.
In conclusion, the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983,
stands as a testament to Pakistan's commitment to ensuring fairness and justice in its
administrative processes. By creating an independent mechanism to address public grievances,
the order has bolstered accountability, transparency, and the rule of law in the country's
governance framework. It remains a cornerstone in the ongoing efforts to build a more just and
responsive government, reflecting the nation's dedication to the principles of democracy and
citizen empowerment.

Jurisdiction, functions, and powers of the Ombudsman

1. Any person aggrieved by the mal-administration on the part of Federal Govt Agency can
make a complaint in writing to the Ombudsman. However, matters which are sub-judice
or relate to the external affairs of Pakistan or are connected with the defence of Pakistan
or the Armed Forces and the matters covered by the laws related to those forces, do not
fall within his jurisdiction. The personal grievances relating to the service matters of
public servants are also excluded from his jurisdiction.
2. The Supreme Court, The Supreme Judicial Council, the Federal Shariat Court and the
High Court are excluded from the definition of the Agency and the Law relating to this
institution does not therefore apply to them
(Agency” means a Ministry, Division, Department, Commission or office of the Federal
Government or statutory body, corporation or other Agency” means a Ministry, Division,
Department, Commission or office of the Federal Government or statutory body,
corporation or other institution established or controlled by the Federal Government but
does not include the Supreme Court, the Supreme Judicial Council, the Federal Shariat
Court or a High Court)
3. In the case where any element of mal-administration is found, the Ombudsman
communicates his findings to the agency concerned for corrective action.
4. The Ombudsman has been vested with the assortment of powers as the court, including
powers to punish for contempt identical to that of the Supreme Court
5. A well-defined procedure has been laid for the scrutiny of the complaints on their receipt.
The decision to entertain and reject each complaint is taken personally by the
Ombudsman. On completion of the investigation which is entertained, the final order is
passed by the Ombudsman which is communicated to the complainant and the Agency.

Features:
The Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 in Pakistan
introduced several key features:
Objective: The primary aim was to provide citizens with a mechanism to seek redress for
grievances against maladministration and injustice by federal government agencies.
Independence: The order aimed to ensure the independence of the Wafaqi Mohtasib, allowing
them to function impartially and without interference.
Jurisdiction: The Wafaqi Mohtasib was given the authority to investigate complaints against
federal government institutions and officials, promoting accountability.
Appointment: It outlined the process for appointing the Wafaqi Mohtasib, ensuring a fair and
transparent selection procedure.
Powers of Investigation: The order granted the Wafaqi Mohtasib the power to conduct
investigations, summon witnesses, and access relevant documents to facilitate fair inquiry.
Recommendations: The Wafaqi Mohtasib was empowered to make recommendations to the
concerned authorities based on the findings of the investigation, with the expectation that
these recommendations would be implemented.
Annual Report: The order mandated the Wafaqi Mohtasib to submit an annual report to the
President of Pakistan, highlighting the activities, challenges, and recommendations for
improvement.
Confidentiality: The order emphasized maintaining confidentiality during investigations,
ensuring a balance between transparency and protecting sensitive information.
These features collectively aimed to establish an effective and independent institution for
addressing citizen grievances against federal government entities in Pakistan.

Impacts
The Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 has had a
significant impact on the governance and administration of Pakistan. The Mohtasib is an
independent and impartial institution that provides a mechanism for citizens to seek redress for
grievances against public officials and agencies. The following are some of the impacts of this
order:
1. Increased Accountability: The Mohtasib has increased accountability of public officials and
agencies by providing a forum for citizens to file complaints against them. This has led to a
reduction in corruption and maladministration, as public officials are now more aware of the
consequences of their actions.
2. Improved Service Delivery: The Mohtasib has also improved service delivery by ensuring that
public officials and agencies are held accountable for their actions. This has led to an
improvement in the quality of services provided to citizens, as public officials are now more
responsive to their needs.
3. Protection of Citizens’ Rights: The Mohtasib has played a crucial role in protecting citizens’
rights by ensuring that public officials and agencies do not violate them. This has led to an
improvement in the overall human rights situation in Pakistan.
4. Increased Transparency: The Mohtasib has increased transparency in the governance and
administration of Pakistan by making public its findings and recommendations. This has led to a
reduction in secrecy and an increase in public trust in the government.
5. Strengthening of Democracy: The Mohtasib has strengthened democracy in Pakistan by
providing citizens with a mechanism to hold public officials and agencies accountable. This has
led to an increase in public participation in the governance of the country.
6. Empowerment of Citizens: The Mohtasib has empowered citizens by giving them a voice in
the governance of the country. This has led to an increase in civic engagement and a reduction in
apathy.
7. Promotion of Good Governance: The Mohtasib has promoted good governance by ensuring
that public officials and agencies adhere to the principles of transparency, accountability, and
responsiveness. This has led to an improvement in the overall governance of the country.
8. Reduction in Litigation: The Mohtasib has also led to a reduction in litigation by providing
citizens with an alternative mechanism to seek redress for their grievances. This has led to a
reduction in the burden on the courts and an improvement in the efficiency of the justice system.
In conclusion, the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983
has had a significant impact on the governance and administration of Pakistan. It has increased
accountability, improved service delivery, protected citizens’ rights, increased transparency,
strengthened democracy, empowered citizens, promoted good governance, and reduced
litigation. The Mohtasib has become an essential institution in the governance of Pakistan, and
its impact will continue to be felt for years to come.

Case Laws
Civil Petition No. 4570 of 2019
Nadia Naz vs The President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, President House, Islamabad &
others
In Civil Petition No. 4570 of 2019, the petitioner, Nadia Naz, was appointed on a temporary basis
as a Resource Person in the Camera Department at Pakistan Television Corporation (PTV) on
September 4, 2007. Subsequently, she filed a complaint alleging workplace harassment under the
"Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2010" against two respondents,
Saeed Ather and Abdul Rashid, on March 8, 2016. While her complaint was pending before the
Federal Ombudsman, the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, ultimately leading
to her termination from service on May 13, 2017, through an order dated May 17, 2016. It is
noteworthy that the petitioner did not challenge her termination before any forum, and as a result,
it attained finality.
Despite the finality of her termination, the petitioner continued to submit various applications
before the Federal Ombudsman, contesting the actions taken against her during the disciplinary
proceedings. The Federal Ombudsman, in an order dated October 16, 2017, not only acknowledged
the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner but also deemed them as harassment. The
Ombudsman condemned the two respondents, Saeed Ather and Abdul Rashid, and directed penal
action against them, including the imposition of penalties and fines. Additionally, the Ministry of
Information, Broadcasting, and National Heritage created an inter-departmental inquiry
commission, which concluded that no incident of harassment had occurred.
The respondents challenged the Federal Ombudsman's order before the President of Pakistan, who,
after examining the record, set aside the Ombudsman's decision, stating that it was exceptional in
the eyes of the law and required appellate review. The President's order emphasized that the issue
revolved around discipline and administrative matters in service, rather than harassment as defined
in the Act of 2010.
The petitioner subsequently challenged the President's order before the Islamabad High Court,
which upheld the President's decision through a judgment dated July 5, 2021. The High Court
maintained that the Federal Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to order the reinstatement of the
petitioner and that the departmental proceedings and actions taken thereunder could be contested
before the appropriate forum, such as a civil court, writ jurisdiction, or an appropriate service
tribunal. The High Court also concluded that no case for harassment, as defined in the Act of 2010,
was established.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition and upheld the order of the President of
Pakistan, which was maintained through the judgment of the Islamabad High Court. The court
held that the Federal Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to order the reinstatement of the petitioner
and that the departmental proceedings and action taken thereunder may be agitated before the
appropriate forum, such as a civil court, writ jurisdiction, or appropriate service tribunal. The court
also held that the petitioner's termination from her job had attained finality as she took no exception
to it before any forum. The court further held that no case for harassment, within the contemplation
of section 2(h) of the Act, 2010 was made out.
Civil petition No 205-L of 2017
Wafaqi Mohtasib Secretariat, Islamabad, etc. Versus SNGPL, Lahore, etc.
The case involves a complaint by an industrial gas consumer, referred to as Respondent No. 2,
against Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Ltd. (SNGPL) for excessive gas billing and mal-administration
by its officials. The complaint was brought to the attention of the Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman),
who conducted an investigation and issued findings and recommendations through the Wafaqi
Mohtasib's Secretariat.
In the "Findings Recommendations" issued on October 28, 2014, the complaint against SNGPL
was rejected, finding no mal-administration on the part of the company. However, Respondent No.
2 filed a review, and in the "Revised Findings" and "Final Recommendations for Implementation"
issued on February 26, 2016, SNGPL was recommended to reconsider the matter by adopting
proper procedure and take disciplinary action against the delinquent officers.
SNGPL challenged these recommendations of the Ombudsman before the Lahore High Court,
arguing that the disputes pertaining to detection bills on allegations of meter tampering fell within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) under the Oil and Gas
Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002. The High Court, in its impugned order dated December
13, 2016, held in favor of SNGPL, stating that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction over such
matters.
The primary issue in the case was whether the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat or the Ombudsman
could maintain the instant petition by challenging the order of the High Court whereby the
jurisdiction and powers of the Ombudsman under the Establishment of the office of the Wafaqi
Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 ("Order, 1983") read with the Federal Ombudsman
Institutional Reforms Act, 2013 ("Act") had been interpreted and determined.
The case then reached the Supreme Court of Pakistan, where the primary question before the court
was whether the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat or the Ombudsman could maintain the instant
petition by challenging the order of the High Court whereby the jurisdiction and powers of the
Ombudsman under the Establishment of the office of the Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order,
1983 ("Order, 1983") read with the Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act, 2013 ("Act")
had been interpreted and determined.
The court noted that the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat was not a legal entity and did not enjoy any
legal status or the power to sue or be sued under the law. The filing of the instant petition by the
Secretariat was therefore deemed to be hopelessly misconceived and not maintainable.
The court also emphasized the distinction between the personal and institutional roles of the
Ombudsman under the Order, 1983. While the Ombudsman could be personally aggrieved
regarding any order that affects his terms and conditions of service under the law, he could not be
said to be aggrieved if the powers to redress mal-administration vested in him under the law were
modified by the Parliament or through interpretation of the constitutional court. Challenging the
powers would be challenging the law and intent of the Parliament, and the Ombudsman, being a
creature of the statute, could not challenge the powers vested in him by the legislature.
The court directed the Ombudsman to hold an inquiry into the matter and submit a report to the
court within two months from the date of the order as to who had authorized the filing of the instant
petition and the action taken against the concerned officials. The instant petition was dismissed
with costs of Rs. 100,000/- imposed under Order XXVIII, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules,
1980, and the costs were to be deposited with any approved, recognized, and well-known
Charitable Organization, with the receipt thereof to be submitted with the Deputy Registrar of the
Court (Lahore Registry) within two months from the date of the order.
Constitutional Petition Nos. D – 1706 of 2015,
1700 of 2015 and 1900 of 2015
The case pertains to complaints filed before the Ombudsman challenging the recruitment process
in the Sindh Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority (STEVTA). The Ombudsman,
after hearing the concerned authorities, passed an order on 13.4.2013, directing the Managing
Director of STEVTA to appoint all six complainants to the posts for which they had applied and
secured higher marks in the test and interview, and which were lying vacant. The Ombudsman also
directed the Chief Secretary of Sindh to constitute an enquiry committee to probe into the matter
of appointments made in STEVTA and ensure that those found delinquent are not escaped
unpunished.
The petitioners filed Constitutional Petition Nos. D – 1706 of 2015, 1700 of 2015 and 1900 of
2015, challenging the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to issue a directive for the appointment of
the complainants. The petitioners contended that the Ombudsman was not competent to issue such
a direction, even if there had been found some illegalities in the recruitment process. The
petitioners argued that the Ombudsman's jurisdiction was supervisory in nature, and he could only
pass appropriate orders in the event of any mal-administration. The term mal-administration
includes failure to perform legal duty or poor management in performing legal duty/obligation.
The respondents in C.P. No. D-1706/2015 sought implementation of the Ombudsman's order. They
contended that the Ombudsman was fair enough when he noticed certain illegalities by STEVTA,
and hence, the directions with regard to the issuance of appointment orders were in accordance
with the law.
The judgment of the case, as per the order sheet dated 05.10.2021, was as follows:
The High Court of Sindh at Karachi examined the impugned judgment and the legal position in
juxtaposition. The court observed that the Ombudsman was not competent to issue a direction for
the appointment of complainants, even if there had been found some illegalities in the recruitment
process. The court held that the Ombudsman's jurisdiction was supervisory in nature, and he could
only communicate his findings to the concerned agency. The court further held that the
Ombudsman had traveled beyond his jurisdiction by issuing such a specific direction.
Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and allowed C.P. Nos. D-1700/2015 and
1900/2015, and dismissed C.P. No. D-1706/2015.
This judgment indicates that the High Court found the Ombudsman's directive for the appointment
of complainants to be beyond the scope of his jurisdiction, and therefore set aside the order. The
court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction as outlined in the
law and the specific circumstances of the case.