Tariq Mahmood Awan
The news of former Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Iqbal Sanghera’s escape from Rawalpindi police custody has shaken the bureaucracy, and it has shaken the provincial bureaucracy even more. On the surface, it is a simple story of an accused man slipping away from the police. Yet, inside the civil service, this incident has triggered deep fear, resentment and anxiety about the direction of accountability in Pakistan. Civil servants across Punjab, many of whom serve in difficult environments and carry heavy administrative responsibilities, say the narrative being presented does not match the realities they know. They believe that if a mid-career officer has been accused of corruption, the legal system should investigate him thoroughly, but he should not be treated in a way that suggests a breakdown of due process. Many officers insist that the story of his escape does not sit well with them, and they fear that such incidents erode trust between the state and its bureaucracy.
According to the ACE version, Sanghera was being taken back to Lahore after a court appearance in Rawalpindi when he asked to use the washroom at the Chakri motorway rest area. There, the ACE claim, his brother and several unidentified individuals whisked him away in a car. An FIR has been registered against four police officials under the Police Order and the Pakistan Penal Code. But within bureaucratic circles, this account has been met with disbelief. Senior officers say that it is highly unusual for a man involved in a three-year-old corruption case to orchestrate such a dramatic escape, especially in a public rest area. They argue that if he truly intended to flee, he had several opportunities over the previous years, and that it makes little sense for a serving officer to take such a drastic step without a clear path for survival beyond the escape. These doubts have created a sense of unease about whether the incident is being portrayed honestly or whether Sanghera himself has become a casualty of deeper structural power struggles.
Within the Punjab bureaucracy, a long-standing grievance has resurfaced: the tension between the federal Pakistan Administrative Service (PAS) and the Punjab Provincial Management Service (PMS). Iqbal Sanghera, being a PMS officer, belongs to a cadre that has repeatedly complained of discrimination, limited career progression and uneven treatment in disciplinary matters. Many PMS officers feel that they are subjected to harsher scrutiny compared to PAS officers, who enjoy institutional protection due to their federal status. They argue that when a PAS officer is accused of corruption, the provincial government cannot act because PAS officers do not fall under provincial laws and their discipline is controlled by the Establishment Division in Islamabad. As a result, PMS officers believe that accountability disproportionately targets them while PAS officers continue to hold most of the senior positions in the Punjab government, often with perceived impunity.
This structural imbalance has created a deep psychological divide inside the service. PMS officers believe that Sanghera’s case reflects this unequal system, where provincial officers are held by the horns even when allegations remain unproven. They say that if he has committed corruption, he should be punished according to law, but he should not be humiliated or treated in a way that undermines fundamental rights. Senior officers argue that due process is the foundation of public administration. A civil servant, they say, is not an ordinary public employee but an extension of the state’s authority, and therefore the state has a higher responsibility to ensure fairness, transparency and procedural justice. The fear now emerging within the provincial bureaucracy is that Sanghera’s case may not be handled with such care.
The concern is amplified by what some officers describe as a rising “climate of fear” created under new accountability and coercive models. Officers say that extrajudicial settlements, aggressive investigations and humiliation-based accountability tactics have created an environment where civil servants feel exposed and unsafe. They worry that if a mid-career officer can be treated in a questionable manner, then lower-ranking officers who lack influence or connections are even more vulnerable. This growing uncertainty undermines bureaucratic confidence and threatens the functioning of the administrative machinery. A fearful bureaucracy cannot be an effective bureaucracy.
Some officers also raise a broader constitutional concern. They argue that every citizen has fundamental rights and a civil servant is no exception. The Constitution guarantees fair trial, due process and human dignity. When officers see one of their colleagues becoming the subject of a narrative that does not appear transparent to them, they begin to fear for their own security within the system. They say that if an officer accused of corruption is to be prosecuted, the law should take its course and a court should determine guilt or innocence rather than the matter being shaped through doubtful circumstances. The worry is not about protecting corrupt individuals. The worry is about protecting the integrity of due process, which forms the backbone of any democratic system.
There is also a sentiment among civil servants that Sanghera may have been “fixed”. Whether this perception is true or not, its existence alone reveals how fragile trust has become within the administrative order. PMS officers in particular feel that some of their colleagues have faced harsher treatment compared to PAS officers who they believe are shielded by institutional privilege. They stress that such double standards weaken governance and demoralise provincial officers who already face limited opportunities for promotion, limited authority and intense public pressure. These officers insist that accountability must apply equally to all cadres and must serve public interest rather than bureaucratic politics.
Finally, the overwhelming opinion among senior officers is that they do not believe Sanghera fled voluntarily. They argue that the narrative lacks logic, consistency and credibility. What they want is not protection for Sanghera, but clarity, fairness and judicial transparency. If he is guilty, he should face consequences. If he is innocent, he should not be destroyed through public perception. The real issue is the preservation of rule of law rather than the defence of an individual officer. Civil servants say that the Sanghera case must be handled carefully because it will shape the future relationship between the bureaucracy and the state. If officers lose faith in due process, the entire administrative structure weakens.
Pakistan’s governance system cannot function when its civil servants feel threatened insecure or selectively targeted. The bureaucracy is not above accountability. But accountability must be lawful, impartial and dignified. Whether Sanghera fled or whether something else happened, the government owes the public and the bureaucracy a transparent investigation grounded in constitutional principles. Only then can confidence be restored and only then can Pakistan move toward a governance model that serves the public interest rather than deepening internal divisions within the state.
