The out gone Sindh Ombudsman Mr. Justice ® Hazir-ul-Khairi during an informal meeting with an English Daily stated that there was need to revisit the law pertaining to Ombudsman. He said that the President and the Governors are invariably advised by persons whose legal acumen is not as sound resulting into injustices to the aggrieved person when government agencies submit review appeals against decisions of Ombudsman. He was of the view that an ombudsman must be from the legal field.
The Law, rule, procedure or Qanoon does not deliver justice but the man sitting on the chair. If the man sitting in the chair is God gifted public spirited person, he would interpret the same single line of law/rule on the universal doctrine that laws are for public welfare. If unfortunately God has deprived him from humanity he would interpret the same line of law against the public. Delivering true and natural justice is not linked merely with people having legal education only. One a Federal Ombudsman a judge of a high court threatened the journalists for contempt of court action when he said he had no tape recorder in his official car while the journalists concerned were seeing the same installed in his car parked outside press conference place. I myself saw a case in which how on same single issues the bureaucrat (having no legal background) S.M. Waseem the Sindh Ombudsman delivered the true natural justice while on same issue at the same time the Federal Ombudsman; a high court chief judge turned down the complaint in favour of bureaucracy. A few years back on my revision appeal to the President a Section Officer (of course having no legal education and not a judge) on behalf of the President referred back my complaint to the Ombudsman for re-processing with the remarks that as PTCL had the right to ask for proof from the subscriber, the citizen also has the same right to ask for proof from the PTCL. The cause of my appeal was that the Federal Ombudsman without even once contacting me, in violation of his own office written procedure, delivered his decision that PTCL has already refunded me. The interesting thing is PTCL in writing to me on the other hand always stated that they never charged any excess from me hence question of any refund does not arise.
On establishment of Banking Mohtasib in June 2006 (or 2005) I was of the opinion that it was perhaps an attempt to say that the Federal Ombudsman has failed in proper dealing with banking complaints. By my own experience I know the Federal Ombudsman did a marvelous job from `1983 to 1995 in case of banking related complaints. During this period I raised many issues of collective community as a result of which some banking procedures like account opening system, bank pass books, changes in Foreign Exchange regulations were made. In later years, as things changed generally in the country, however if I approached on such issues my petitions were not accepted on the ground that I was not an aggrieved and issue raised was just a suggestion.
The very first complaint I filed with the new Banking Mohtasib disappointed me though it did not surprise me at all. In my this old age I have learnt since more than a decade that many new Sections, Departments, Cells, we established on huge expense to the nation only to create new offices and new jobs.
During the last about 10 years except for hardly twice or thrice I never received my six monthly statement from National Bank of Pakistan, Main Branch, Karachi. Every six month I am required to perform a ritual first to write to the Branch that six monthly statement had not reached of course never to get any response. Later after several reminders I would start writing to President NBPP of course from there too not to get any response. And this circle I have to repeat almost every six months.
On establishment of Banking Mohtasib I filed my complaint on the subject of non response to which I received a few copies of six monthly statements. The banking Mohtasib advised me that for any future contact / complaint I should now directly contact one given named SVP in NBPP President Office who will look into the matter. With this my complaint stood closed. But with what result?
The job of an ombudsman is to investigate and diagnose the cause and put the derailed system back on track so that same error does not happen again. In an ombudsman system invariably on finalization of a complaint, a written Order is issued containing briefly the cause of complaint, stand point of both parties, ombudsmans observation and finally his Order/Decision declaring who is right and who was wrong. In this case my complaint stood finished merely that an SVP would in future respond to the complainant who actually never cared. So what inspired out of my complaint? Was the complainant wrong or that of Bank? If on demand each time the bank was sending copies of the statements, where were going the originals? Why the complainant had to write to the bank every six months, the banking Mohtasib perhaps did not feel the pain of the aggrieved citizen.
The copies six monthly statements later again I got only after repeating ritual. Some companies were sending me Dividends on my wrong account number. On this I repeatedly contact the Branch and as well as the said SVP. During this more than two years not a single time the said SVP ever responded me.
Recently when I raised the issue afresh this time requesting the Banking Mohtasib to take note that there was no change in the situation and that the concerned SVP despite promise with the Banking Mohtasib has not a single time responded to this complainant, the Mohtasib asked the bank to take note on the complaint of habitual complainant. The issue is where is the investigation, diagnosis etc in this case. When once I raised such a non response complaint with the Federal ombudsman Mr. Justice Sardar Mohammad Iqbal who died early this month (ALLAH may place him in heaven) did not dispose of my complaint in such a summary manner terming this complainant as habitual. He investigated the matter fully, issued his written final Order in which he mentioned that in future if the same thing happened he would hold President NBP personally responsible. No one at NBP was afraid of that warning but at least late Ombudsman had the heart feeling the pains of aggrieved citizens and honestly and judiciously issued his findings by not caring only for bureaucracy or protecting the errant bureaucracy.
The Law, rule, procedure or Qanoon does not deliver justice but the man sitting on the chair. If the man sitting in the chair is God gifted public spirited person, he would interpret the same single line of law/rule on the universal doctrine that laws are for public welfare. If unfortunately God has deprived him from humanity he would interpret the same line of law against the public. Delivering true and natural justice is not linked merely with people having legal education only. One a Federal Ombudsman a judge of a high court threatened the journalists for contempt of court action when he said he had no tape recorder in his official car while the journalists concerned were seeing the same installed in his car parked outside press conference place. I myself saw a case in which how on same single issues the bureaucrat (having no legal background) S.M. Waseem the Sindh Ombudsman delivered the true natural justice while on same issue at the same time the Federal Ombudsman; a high court chief judge turned down the complaint in favour of bureaucracy. A few years back on my revision appeal to the President a Section Officer (of course having no legal education and not a judge) on behalf of the President referred back my complaint to the Ombudsman for re-processing with the remarks that as PTCL had the right to ask for proof from the subscriber, the citizen also has the same right to ask for proof from the PTCL. The cause of my appeal was that the Federal Ombudsman without even once contacting me, in violation of his own office written procedure, delivered his decision that PTCL has already refunded me. The interesting thing is PTCL in writing to me on the other hand always stated that they never charged any excess from me hence question of any refund does not arise.
On establishment of Banking Mohtasib in June 2006 (or 2005) I was of the opinion that it was perhaps an attempt to say that the Federal Ombudsman has failed in proper dealing with banking complaints. By my own experience I know the Federal Ombudsman did a marvelous job from `1983 to 1995 in case of banking related complaints. During this period I raised many issues of collective community as a result of which some banking procedures like account opening system, bank pass books, changes in Foreign Exchange regulations were made. In later years, as things changed generally in the country, however if I approached on such issues my petitions were not accepted on the ground that I was not an aggrieved and issue raised was just a suggestion.
The very first complaint I filed with the new Banking Mohtasib disappointed me though it did not surprise me at all. In my this old age I have learnt since more than a decade that many new Sections, Departments, Cells, we established on huge expense to the nation only to create new offices and new jobs.
During the last about 10 years except for hardly twice or thrice I never received my six monthly statement from National Bank of Pakistan, Main Branch, Karachi. Every six month I am required to perform a ritual first to write to the Branch that six monthly statement had not reached of course never to get any response. Later after several reminders I would start writing to President NBPP of course from there too not to get any response. And this circle I have to repeat almost every six months.
On establishment of Banking Mohtasib I filed my complaint on the subject of non response to which I received a few copies of six monthly statements. The banking Mohtasib advised me that for any future contact / complaint I should now directly contact one given named SVP in NBPP President Office who will look into the matter. With this my complaint stood closed. But with what result?
The job of an ombudsman is to investigate and diagnose the cause and put the derailed system back on track so that same error does not happen again. In an ombudsman system invariably on finalization of a complaint, a written Order is issued containing briefly the cause of complaint, stand point of both parties, ombudsmans observation and finally his Order/Decision declaring who is right and who was wrong. In this case my complaint stood finished merely that an SVP would in future respond to the complainant who actually never cared. So what inspired out of my complaint? Was the complainant wrong or that of Bank? If on demand each time the bank was sending copies of the statements, where were going the originals? Why the complainant had to write to the bank every six months, the banking Mohtasib perhaps did not feel the pain of the aggrieved citizen.
The copies six monthly statements later again I got only after repeating ritual. Some companies were sending me Dividends on my wrong account number. On this I repeatedly contact the Branch and as well as the said SVP. During this more than two years not a single time the said SVP ever responded me.
Recently when I raised the issue afresh this time requesting the Banking Mohtasib to take note that there was no change in the situation and that the concerned SVP despite promise with the Banking Mohtasib has not a single time responded to this complainant, the Mohtasib asked the bank to take note on the complaint of habitual complainant. The issue is where is the investigation, diagnosis etc in this case. When once I raised such a non response complaint with the Federal ombudsman Mr. Justice Sardar Mohammad Iqbal who died early this month (ALLAH may place him in heaven) did not dispose of my complaint in such a summary manner terming this complainant as habitual. He investigated the matter fully, issued his written final Order in which he mentioned that in future if the same thing happened he would hold President NBP personally responsible. No one at NBP was afraid of that warning but at least late Ombudsman had the heart feeling the pains of aggrieved citizens and honestly and judiciously issued his findings by not caring only for bureaucracy or protecting the errant bureaucracy.
