Mayo Hospital irregularities: Punjab CM approves action against CEO, former officer.

LAHORE -- Chief Minister Hamza Shehbaz has accorded approval to a summary to initiate action against Mayo Hospital Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Prof Saqib Saeed, former chief operating officer (COO) Dr Iftikhar Ahmad and nine other officials under the PEEDA Act.

The charges of inefficiency and misconduct proved against them in an initial inquiry. The CM acted on a summary moved by the specialised healthcare and medical education department which in the initial inquiry held the officers guilty of charges and recommended a departmental action against them.

'... Competent authority in due consideration of facts and recommendations contained in the probe report furnished by health department is of considered opinion that there are sufficient grounds to hold joint inquiry proceedings against the officers under Section 1(4) (iii) and Section 3 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 on the charges of inefficiency and misconduct,' reads the document. The chief minister considered that in the light of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice it is necessary to hold joint inquiry against the officials and has appointed Mr Fuad Hashim Rabbani, secretary cooperative department, as inquiry officer.

The report said Mayo Hospital CEO Prof Dr Saqib Saeed and former COO Dr Iftikhar Ahmad floated the tender for establishing commercial pharmacy on the hospital premises in violation of a Punjab government policy. The policy was circulated through a letter on Sept 23, 2020 by the health department.

It said the officers adopted the procurement rules as per PPR 14 for awarding the contract to commercial firm at the Mayo Hospital whereas such processes of leasing are concluded through open bidding. They failed to supervise the process for establishing commercial pharmacy inside the hospital in a transparent way because it was observed that last date of purchase of tender document in clause 49 of bidding document was given May 15, 2021, whereas in the tender notice only the date of receiving was mentioned May 20, 2021.

Similarly, the demand of the bid security of Rs5m was estimated baseless as the said cost/reserve price of the bid was not determined before initiation of the process.

'In the clause 10 of the bidding document, it was mentioned that the bidder would deposit 2pc of the estimated bid as security/deposit/bank guarantee whereas at another place bid security of Rs5 million was demanded which was not only...