The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has removed from service a tax official of Karachi, who issued illegal notices/orders to 134 taxpayers by accessing FBR’s electronic database and also issued 91 fake orders/notices/letters to different taxpayers.
The said official was running a parallel official system for personal motives, the FBR notification added.
The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Muhammad Khalid, Inspector-IR, RTO-I, Karachi, by placing him under suspension with immediate effect from 23 June 2016, followed by the issuance of Charge Sheet/Statement of Allegations dated 5 January 2017 under the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973.
As the record was not available with the department was in the custody of FIA for a considerable period. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings pending under E&D Rules, 1973, for a period of more than 05 years. were closed, reinstating the accused officer into service with effect from 23 December 2021 and fresh disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 2020, on the charges of “Inefficiency”, “Misconduct” and “Corruption” vide Charge Sheet Statement of Allegations.
Muhammad Ejaz Khan (RS/BS-20), who was appointed as Inquiry officer, could not complete the inquiry proceedings due to the non-availability of record room FIA,
which was ultimately received by the Inquiry officer through RTO-I, Karachi vide letter dated 06.08.2025. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted a comprehensive inquiry report.
After thoroughly going through the FIA forensic analysis record, which was confronted with the accused officer and reply of the accused officer, it is observed that the accused officer has not been able to come up with a strong refutation and defence in his favour. The details in respect of his reply have already been discussed thoroughly in the preceding paragraphs of the enquiry report.
The charge of illegally accessing electronic data of the FBR e-portal in respect of various taxpayers has been proved.
The data of such taxpayers, summon verification letters, and orders in original, which have been disowned by the officers in whose name and designations they were issued, were in no way legally entitled for the accused officer to access, download, prepare their summons/verification letters and orders in original, and keep their records in his custody. It is a clear case of breach of official trust and amounts to misconduct while using the names and designations of the officers, which can only be for personal motives.
Similarly, the charge of occupying the office’s room, without any valid authorization also stands proved as the accused officer could not produce sufficient ground, evidence and justification for occupying the said room, wherein a parallel official system was established for personal motives.
The charge that he has kept official records, both electronic and physical, in respect of various taxpayers, including personal belongings in the office’s room, without any lawful authorization and without any official assignment, also stands proved, as the accused officer could not come up with a proper reply to rebut this charge.
The accused officer failed to submit any reply to the question of 91 fake orders/notices/letters, which were disowned by Mushtaq Ali Waghan, the then DCIR, and Muhammad Masood Ghorsi, the then DCIR, on whose behalf these orders/notices/letters were purportedly issued. Besides, analysis of the data obtained from the hard disks revealed that the accused had accessed the FBR’s database without valid authorization, downloaded the data of 134 taxpayers, and in many cases also issued illegal notices/orders, as per details mentioned in the inquiry report.
The accused could not put forth anything on these illegal actions. Besides, the Inquiry Officer submitted his findings after thoroughly examining the FIA’s forensic analysis records, which was also confirmed to the accused officer. Therefore, the claim of the accused that he was not heard by the Inquiry Officer remained unsubstantiated.
The above-narrated facts and details indicate that the charges of “Inefficiency” and “Misconduct”, as defined under Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rule, 2020, stand proved against the accused officer. Therefore, a major penalty of ”Removal from Service” is recommended for the accused officer.
