Complainants question impartiality of probe

Complainants have raised concerns over the impartiality of an inquiry into the alleged illegal recruitment of 1,500 sanitary patrol staff within the Rawalpindi District Health Authority (DHA).

Accusing the existing three-member inquiry committee of delaying the investigation and exerting pressure on them, the complainants have demanded the establishment of a new, 'unbiased committee'.

Rafaqat Hussain, Muhammad Qasim Khan, and Bushra, the primary complainants, addressed a letter to Rawalpindi Division Health Services Director Dr Ijaz Ahmed Gallo.

They alleged that members of the current committee—the chief information officers of DHA Jhelum, DHA Chakwal, and the district health officer of Attock—were conducting a biased investigation, employing delay tactics, and avoiding merit-based proceedings.

They claimed that the delay is intended to allow the 1,500 recruits, who were hired on 89-day contracts, to complete their tenure and continue receiving salaries.

According to the complainants, the inquiry committee has yet to record statements from DHA officers who oversaw the allegedly irregular recruitment process.

They reported being pressured by repeated summons from the committee, which they say is attempting to silence their concerns.

Citing these issues, the complainants are boycotting the ongoing investigation and are calling for the formation of a new inquiry body to ensure a fair probe.

Dr Gallo had previously expressed frustration over the delay, accusing the current inquiry committee of not submitting a timely fact-finding report.

He had appealed to the Punjab secretary of health and the secretary of primary health for intervention.

Despite his concerns, the provincial health secretary ordered the same committee to continue the investigation, prompting the complainants to renew their call for an independent inquiry.

The complainants also demanded that the recruitment of the sanitary patrols for an anti-dengue campaign be declared illegal, asserting that the process was marred by procedural irregularities.

They highlighted that recruitment for the 89-day contracts was initiated in the current fiscal year using an outdated advertisement from the previous year.

They alleged that the entire hiring process—from advertisement and interviews to appointment letters—was completed in a single day, a timeline they found highly improbable.