A long-running controversy involving a former Sindh police officer has raised serious questions about how recruitment records are checked and how an officer can continue serving for decades despite questions surrounding his appointment.
According to reports, Ejaz Tareen joined the police as an Assistant Sub-Inspector and eventually rose through the ranks to become a senior police officer. During his career, he served in different parts of Sindh and also held the position of Deputy Superintendent of Police in Nawabshah for several years.
The issue reportedly came to light when Tareen approached authorities over his seniority. During the verification process, officials began examining the documents related to his original appointment. It was then alleged that the appointment letter through which he had initially joined the police service was not genuine.
The discovery came after Tareen had already spent around 32 years in government service. Over the years, he had received promotions, salaries and other official benefits while serving in different positions.
Following the findings, departmental proceedings were initiated, and the matter eventually reached the Sindh Service Tribunal. Authorities subsequently took action against Tareen, with the Sindh police issuing an order regarding his dismissal and the recovery of government benefits and other dues.
The case has attracted attention mainly because of the extraordinary length of time involved. The central question is not only how an allegedly disputed appointment document entered the system, but also how it remained unchallenged while the officer continued to receive promotions and serve in senior positions.
At the same time, the matter has also involved legal proceedings and Tareen has challenged the action taken against him. Reports have indicated that he disputed the allegations and sought relief through the courts, making the case more complicated than a simple story of a “fake officer.”
For observers, the episode highlights a serious administrative concern. Recruitment documents are supposed to be verified at the beginning of a government employee’s career, while promotions and seniority claims normally involve further scrutiny of service records.
The case therefore raises an uncomfortable question for the police department: if there were irregularities in the original appointment, how did they remain unnoticed for more than three decades?
Ultimately, the legal proceedings will determine the status of the allegations. But regardless of the outcome, the controversy has exposed the need for stronger record verification and accountability within public-sector institutions.
