The Sindh High Court (SHC) in Hyderabad has decisively set aside a federal ombudsman's order concerning a workplace harassment complaint, overturning penalties against a senior officer from National Savings Pakistan. This ruling absolves Syed Farhan Ahmed Shah, in-charge of the Regional Directorate of National Savings Hyderabad, from a demotion and a significant fine previously imposed.

The ombudsman's secretariat had, on January 18, 2024, demoted Mr. Shah and levied a Rs100,000 fine following a complaint by Kiran Mehmood. Mr. Shah’s legal counsel, Barrister Jawad Qureshi, challenged this decision through a constitutional petition before the SHC. Despite public notice, Ms. Mehmood did not appear to contest the officer's petition.

Procedural and Jurisdictional Flaws in Harassment Case

The SHC bench, comprising Justice Arbab Ali Hakro and Justice Riazat Ali Sahar, found multiple legal infirmities in the ombudsman's proceedings. A key argument from Mr. Shah's counsel was that the ombudsman secretariat lacked the proper jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant, Ms. Mehmood, was reportedly neither an employee nor statutorily associated with the workplace.

Furthermore, the court noted that the ombudsperson failed to constitute an inquiry committee, a mandatory step under Section 3(2) of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010. Barrister Qureshi contended that the evidence relied upon was unverified, fabricated, and insufficient to meet the required legal threshold. He also alleged manifest bias and a lack of cogent reasoning for the severe penalty imposed.

Court Scrutinizes Evidence and Legal Application

Justice Hakro, authoring the judgment, declared the ombudsman's order “without lawful authority and of no legal effect,” rendering the penalties unsustainable. The judge emphasized that the ombudsperson acted beyond jurisdiction and incorrectly applied the statutory framework, leading to a decision unsupported by admissible evidence.

The judgment also highlighted that the ombudsman's order delved into irrelevant matters, such as the complainant’s dual professions, bar council enrolment, and employment with Sindh Police. These issues were deemed extraneous to determining workplace harassment. The court further criticized the ombudsperson for drawing an adverse inference against Mr. Shah for not producing “deleted messages,” clarifying that the burden of proving harassment rests solely with the complainant. The Act 2010, while remedial, operates within defined parameters, requiring strict adherence to its procedures, Justice Hakro concluded.

Reference: Dawn - Home