Aamir Lashari
ISLAMABAD: A serious controversy has surfaced at the Pakistan Sports Board (PSB) over alleged tampering with the educational certificates and service record of its Security Expert, Malik Ashraf. Documents submitted to the PSB allegedly show his date of birth as 1966 instead of 1962, making him appear four years younger.
The alleged alteration raises questions not only about the authenticity of his service record but also about how the discrepancy remained undetected despite the copies of his documents being available with the relevant authorities. Whether the matter reflects administrative negligence or possible collusion is now a key question.
By allegedly changing his date of birth from 1962 to 1966, the Security Officer is said to have secured an additional four years of service. According to his original educational certificate and service record, Malik Ashraf was due to retire in 2022. However, following the alleged alteration, he continued in service until 2026. Even after reaching the allegedly revised retirement date, he was not retired. Instead, the PSB changed the designation of Security Officer to Security Expert and granted Malik Ashraf a further two-year extension.
The development has raised serious questions over the verification mechanisms of the PSB and the Ministry concerned. If the original educational certificates and service record carried a different date of birth, why was the discrepancy not identified when his service was extended? And who was responsible for verifying the documents submitted to the Board before allowing him to continue in such a sensitive position?
Following the extension in the Security Officer’s tenure and the emergence of allegations regarding tampering with his service record, the Director General of the Pakistan Sports Board ordered the constitution of a three-member inquiry committee on June 30. The committee was tasked with scrutinising and verifying Malik Ashraf’s educational certificates as well as his other service records. According to the notification issued on June 30, the committee was given 15 days to complete the inquiry and submit its findings. However, despite the passage of around two and a half months, the inquiry report has yet to be submitted.
The delay has further intensified questions surrounding the matter. The alleged irregularities concern not merely an administrative record but the credentials and service history of an official entrusted with security responsibilities at a major national sports institution. Revelations of favouritism, nepotism and administrative irregularities in public institutions are not new, but allegations that a Security Officer may have obtained an extended tenure through discrepancies in official documents have opened a fresh Pandora’s box.
The central question is whether an individual accused of allegedly providing incorrect information in his service record to secure or prolong employment can continue to be entrusted with a sensitive official position before the allegations are conclusively investigated. Equally important is whether the officials responsible for scrutiny and verification should be held accountable if the alleged discrepancy was detectable from the original documents.
The Daily Times sent a questionnaire to the inquiry committee seeking an update on the allegations of document tampering involving the Security Expert. No response has been received so far. The PSB is welcome to provide its position on the matter at any time, and its response will be published verbatim.
