In the last week, several outlets and creators have pushed viral claims that the University of Health Sciences (UHS) Lahore’s Vice Chancellor has “misused authority” and deployed public resources for private benefit. The most specific write-ups name Prof. Dr. Ahsan Waheed Rathore and describe alleged abuse of office; importantly, these are allegations at the reportage stage, not findings of guilt by a court or a notified inquiry yet. As of late October 2025, UHS’s own MDCAT 2025 guide still lists Prof. Rathore as the incumbent Vice Chancellor, which means that unless an official notification says otherwise, we must treat him as sitting VC while any inquiry—if ordered—runs its course.
What does “exposed” actually mean in law? Sensational thumbnails don’t decide facts. For a public university, accusations of misuse of staff, vehicles, procurement, or perks typically trigger a tiered process: (1) an administrative fact-finding by the controlling department (usually Higher Education Department/S&GAD), (2) if financial irregularities appear, audit references to the Auditor General and/or a vigilance/anti-corruption wing, and (3) where criminality is indicated (forgery, criminal breach of trust, corruption), FIR and investigation by the competent agency. None of that can be assumed from a video; it must show up on paper—terms of reference, inquiry order, or a registered case—before lawyers can speak in exact sections and consequences.
Context also matters. UHS is no stranger to controversy: a prior leadership era faced a high-profile MCAT paper-leak probe years ago. That history does not prove today’s claims, but it explains public sensitivity whenever UHS governance and integrity are questioned. Each episode stands or falls on its own evidence—documents, money trails, approvals, movement registers, and procurement files.
Dunya News
If you’re a student, parent, or faculty member wondering what happens next, here’s the sober path. First, watch for an official notification: has the government ordered an inquiry or appointed an inquiry officer/committee? Second, look for interim measures (no-cost posting, leave, or acting charge to another officer) that sometimes accompany probes in universities to avoid perceived influence over records. Third, expect document-heavy verification: vehicle logs, HR deployment orders, TA/DA bills, gate registers, and procurement minutes either corroborate or collapse allegations. Until those appear, claims remain claims—even when repeated loudly online.
From a rights perspective, the VC (like any public office holder) is entitled to due process and a presumption of innocence. From a governance perspective, the university community is entitled to transparency and timely updates so academic operations—MDCAT, admissions, examinations—are not destabilized by rumor cycles. The balance is straightforward: publish the terms of reference and timelines if an inquiry exists; publish the outcome when it concludes; and keep the academic calendar running on schedule in the meantime. UHS’s recent public documents and schedules suggest business as usual pending any formal actions, which is how it should be until verified facts say otherwise.
University of Health Sciences
My professional take is simple: let’s separate allegation, investigation, and adjudication. If a competent forum issues a written finding—administrative or judicial—I’ll break down the exact rules, offences, and penalties that apply (e.g., PEEDA proceedings for misconduct, Anti-Corruption/NAB referrals for criminal elements, recovery/surcharge under audit law). Until then, treat social content as a tip, not as evidence. And if you’re directly affected (employee, student, vendor), preserve relevant communications and documents; that is how truth—whichever way it cuts—gets established in Pakistan’s legal system.
