Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 IHC 92310
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Dr. Zubaida Ch. vs The President of Pakistan.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2025 IHC 92310. In this matter between Dr. Zubaida Ch. and The President of Pakistan., the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Muhammad Azam Khan) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Muhammad Azam Khan DECISION DATE: 09-JUL-2025 CASE NO: Writ Petition-3563-2017 CITATION: 2025 IHC 92310 PARTIES: Dr. Zubaida Ch. VS The President of Pakistan. LAW / SECTION: section 8 of the Protection against Harassment of women at the Workplace Act, 2010 SUBJECT: Miscelleneous, Other REMARKS: Miscellaneous Matter, Against dismissal Representation by President. ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD W.P. NO. 3563 OF 2017 DR. ZUBAIDA CHAUDHARY
VS
THE PRESIDENT ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, ETC.
Petitioner by : Ms. Imaan Zainab Hazir, Advocate along with the Petitioner.
Respondents by : Mr. Sabir Hussain, Advocate for Respondents No.3, 4 & 5. Raja Zamir ud Din Ahmed, Assistant Attorney General.
Assisted by : Ms. Amna Danial Khawaja, Judicial Law Clerk.
Date of hearing : 12.06.2025 MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, J. 1. Through the instant Writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Constitution”), Dr. Zubaida Chaudhary (“Petitioner”) has challenged the Order dated 17-07-2017 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Director (Legal), President’s Secretariat (Public), whereby the Representation against the decision/order/findings/recommendation of the Federal Ombudsman for Protection Against Harassment of Women at Workplace, filed by the Petitioner, was rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner, an Associate Professor of Botany at Hazara University, Mansehra, filed Complaint No. 1(305)/2016- FOS(Reg) before the Federal Ombudsman on 13-12-2016, alleging persistent harassment by several faculty members, specifically by three individuals named as opponents in the case. She was appointed in 2008, and soon after, Azhar Shah, a Lecturer in the Botany Department, began interfering with her official duties. In March 2010, she applied for the post of TTS Professor, but her application was ignored. The University's Syndicate later appointed her as 2 W.P. No. 3563/2017
Chairperson/HOD, which displeased Dr. Habib Ahmad, the former HOD. Upon taking charge, she requested the student records, but Dr. Habib only provided a few hard copies. Dr. Muqrab Shah, the Registrar and brother of Vice Chancellor Dr. Sakhawat Shah, allegedly obstructed her role, excluding her from departmental decisions and assigning her only verification duties of old degrees. Lacking supporting records, she refused to verify them, which led to coercion by Azhar Hussain Shah, who also allegedly harassed her physically and mentally. In February 2011, she applied for a post of a Grade-21 Professor, but Azhar Hussain Shah was selected instead. Upon reviewing his academic credentials, she raised concerns about inconsistencies, including overlapping degree timelines. On 09-02-2012, she reported being forced to resign as Chairperson after humiliation by Dr. Muqrab Shah, Dean Dr. Bakhtiar Yousafzai, and others. She proceeded abroad for a post-doctoral study leave on 18-04-2012, returning on 25-04-2013. Her accommodation allotment was revoked the same evening and not restored even after her mother’s death on 08- 06-2013. Despite her qualifications, she was again ignored in a June 2013 selection process in favor of Dr. Manzoor Hussain (Ph.D. 2012), who allegedly harassed her, removed her from committees, confiscated her office materials, and cut off her electricity. In August 2013, after a minor road accident, she sought medical leave, which was later converted to leave without pay by Dr. Bakhtiar, Zubair Alam, and Bahadur Shah. Her return in December 2013 was denied on the pretext of semester closure, and previously unpaid salaries were reimbursed. She rejoined on 16-02-2014, but was unpaid until April 2014. In May 2014, only 40% of her salary was paid, and no further clarity was provided till May 2015. Her case was referred to the Anomaly Committee, where Dr. Manzoor Hussain again threatened her regarding promotion and pension. From June 2013 onwards, she was denied supervision of M.Phil and Ph.D. students. In December 2015, during an Emergency Selection Board, she attempted to present her case, but was barred by Dr. Habib Ahmad. In February 2016, she again applied for the post of Professor, but was told that the opening was for a TTS post, with BPS selections scheduled later. She also reported being followed by an unmarked vehicle, which was notified via SMS to the Vice Chancellor’s Personal Secretary. On 16-08-2016, she faced alleged physical assault, the details of which were reported in a letter dated 17-08-2016 to the 3 W.P. No. 3563/2017
Secretary HED, Peshawar; no progress was made on this complaint. Despite attending classes, she was marked absent and had her salary withheld without formal orders. Daily inquiry notices were issued by the Registrar, causing her financial hardship, mental distress, and health deterioration. 3. The said complaint was contested by Respondents No. 3 to 5, and both parties recorded their statements and cross-examined each other. Documentary evidence was produced by both parties, and after conclusion of lengthy proceedings, the complaint of the Petitioner was accepted by the Federal Ombudsman, and the Respondents No. 3 to 5 were awarded penalty of a fine of Rs. 100,000/- each along with censure letters vide Order dated 20-03-2017. The Respondents No. 3 to 5 filed representations before Respondent No. 1/President of Pakistan against the said order of the Federal Ombudsman, while the Petitioner also moved a representation to enhance the penalty awarded to Respondents No. 3 to 5 by the Federal Ombudsman vide Order dated 20-03- 2017. The Respondent No. 1 dismissed the representation of the Petitioner but accepted the representations filed by Respondents No. 3 and 5 vide Impugned Order. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Impugned Order, passed by Respondent No.1, is without jurisdiction, based on assumptions rather than evidence, and contrary to law and facts. It is argued that the decision primarily relies on the internal inquiry report of Hazara University, prepared under the authority of Respondent No. 3 (Vice Chancellor), who himself is accused in the matter. The Respondent No.1 failed to appreciate critical evidence, particularly the report of the SHO Shinkiyari dated 03-01-2017, which confirmed the occurrence of the alleged incident and noted that witnesses were unwilling to record statements due to fear of the Vice Chancellor. The Petitioner’s allegations regarding six-hour unlawful confinement, physical abuse, yanking of hair, and attempts at inappropriate physical contact, fall squarely within the definition of "harassment" under Section 2(h) of the Protection Against Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2010 (“Act, 2010”). The Ombudsman’s classification of the matter as managerial or administrative is erroneous, especially since the Petitioner did not seek administrative relief, but specifically prayed for penalties under the 2010 Act for workplace harassment. Further, the order contains discriminatory and 4 W.P. No. 3563/2017
stereotypical remarks, implying that a woman in her fifties cannot be harassed, which is an unfounded presumption not supported by law. The decision also inappropriately compares the Petitioner’s case to other unrelated instances, insinuating misuse of the said Act without any basis. The counsel emphasized that the Petitioner was suspended on 07-12-2016 through the 34th Syndicate meeting without being served a show cause notice or given an opportunity of defense, which is in clear violation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2016. Notably, the elected syndicate members had objected to the tampering of minutes and other illegal actions of Respondent No. 3, which were also publicly reported. The Respondents failed to constitute an Inquiry Committee as mandated under Section 11 of the Act, indicating malafide intent. The Code of Conduct under the said Act explicitly acknowledges that harassment often occurs without witnesses, and lack of testimony should not invalidate a claim, especially when supported by circumstantial and corroborative evidence like the SHO’s report. The learned counsel submits that the Impugned Order overlooks the legislative intent and purpose behind the said Act, which aims to protect women from harassment at the workplace. Therefore, the Petitioner seeks that the Impugned Order be set aside, and that major penalties be imposed on Respondents No. 3 to 5 for harassment and their failure to comply with the statutory provisions of the said Act, in the interest of justice. 5. The learned counsel on behalf of Respondents No. 3 to 5 argued that the Complaint filed by the Petitioner dated 17-12-2016 does not disclose any act of harassment. The said Complaint is just an application addressed to the Governor of K.P.K. in respect of her service grievances. Initially, the complaint dated 17-12-2016 was moved before Respondent No. 2. However, during the course of hearing, the Petitioner was confronted by Respondent No. 2 with regard to her Complaint dated 17-12-2016 on the ground that the same did not disclose any act of harassment. The Complainant then submitted another Application addressed to the Secretary HED, dated 17-08-2016, before Respondent No. 2, which was illegal, unlawful, and without any justification. Her Complaint dated 17-08-2016 was referred by the Secretary, HED, to the Harassment Committee vide Letter No. SO(U-H) H-E/12-16-Complaint/2016 dated 06-01-2017, which was decided by the Harassment Committee duly 5 W.P. No. 3563/2017
constituted by Hazara University under the provisions of the Act, 2010. The Harassment Committee decided the matter and turned down the Complaint dated 17-08-2016, thereby recommending that the proceedings be sent to the Federal Ombudsman. The recommendation report of the Harassment Committee is in accordance with the provisions of the Act ibid. Nothing has been disclosed in the Complaint of the Petitioner regarding any harassment caused to her by Respondents No. 3 to 5 in the University premises. The Petitioner herself stated in her statement before the Harassment Committee that Respondent No. 3 is innocent. The Respondent No. 1 has passed a speaking and detailed order after thorough scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, which suggests that ample opportunity was given to the Petitioner. The Petitioner herself failed to prove her baseless allegations against Respondents No. 3 to 5. The Report of the SHO is contradictory to the Roznamcha, which reflects his malafide. Moreover, prior to the filing of the Complaint by the Petitioner, an unpleasant occurrence had taken place outside the premises of Hazara University in a market wherein two students of Hazara University were murdered. The local police, without any justification or reason, raided Hazara University, severely beat several students, and also threatened the administration of Hazara University with dire consequences. The Hazara University filed an application under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. for lodging of FIR against high-ups of police and District Administration, Mansehra, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Mansehra vide his order dated 17-12-2016. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Mansehra dated 17-12-2016 is still under challenge before the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, in Writ Petition No. 70-A/2017. The findings given by Respondent No. 1 are well reasoned. The Complaint filed by the Petitioner was baseless. Neither evidence was produced by the Petitioner before the Harassment Committee of Hazara University, nor any supporting evidence was brought forth. The Respondent No. 2, on a false and baseless Complaint of the Petitioner, punished Respondents No. 3 to 5. There is nothing on record to suggest any physical abuse by the Respondents No. 3 to 5, dragging her to the basement, or any of the other allegations. Since the decision of Respondent No. 2 against Respondents No. 3 to 5 was illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, fanciful, and without jurisdiction, the same was set aside through the Impugned Order of 6 W.P. No. 3563/2017
Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner has sought to raise factual controversy with regard to her service matter. However, she has absolutely failed to establish the facts of the alleged arbitrary acts of the Hazara University administration. The proceedings against the Petitioner were initiated in accordance with the provisions of the Hazara University Statute by the Syndicate of the University. She was given full opportunity of personal hearing by the Inquiry Committee constituted by the Syndicate. She was also served with a show cause notice and, thereafter, on the recommendation of the Inquiry Committee, the Petitioner was removed from her service vide Notification No. 4(2)HU/Re/2017/1259, dated 24-08-2017. The Inquiry Committee, after detailed probe, found the Complaint of the Petitioner dated 17-08-2016 to be false and frivolous. The Report of the Inquiry Committee was also submitted to learned Federal Ombudsman/Respondent No. 2. Although the Report was brought to the knowledge of Respondent No. 2 and a copy thereof was submitted, yet the same was not taken into consideration. The Respondents No. 3 and 5 have no concern with the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee. The Report and recommendations of the Inquiry Committee have attained finality as the same have not been challenged at any forum by the Petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 7. The Impugned Order reveals that Respondent No. 1 based its reasoning on the following points:- A. Inquiry Report by Harassment Committee of Hazara University, Mansehra;
B. Inquiry Report by Investigation Committee of Higher Education Department; and
C. Interpretation of Sexual Harassment. 8. Perusal of the record shows that the Petitioner had moved an application dated 17-08-2016 before the Registrar and Secretary, Higher Education Department, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, against Respondents No. 3 to 5, wherein she asserted allegations regarding illegal confinement, physical abuse, harassment, and threats confronted by her at the workplace, i.e., Hazara University, Mansehra. According to the contents of her Complaint, the Vice Chancellor/Respondent No. 3 telephonically summoned the Petitioner to the University on 15-08-2016, informing her that there were certain student 7 W.P. No. 3563/2017
allegations against her which required discussion. Upon her arrival, she was asked by the Vice Chancellor/Respondent No. 3 to apologize to Dr. Manzoor Hussain/Respondent No. 5. As she had no prior knowledge of the allegations, the Petitioner sought time to consider her response, which was granted until 9:00 A.M. the following morning. Thereafter, on 16-08-2016, the Petitioner went to her department, where she was followed into her office by the Vice Chancellor/Respondent No. 3 and Dr. Mujtaba Shah. She was asked whether Dr. Manzoor Hussain/Respondent No. 5 had received her apology. Upon her request for further time, the Vice Chancellor allegedly became agitated and informed her that if no written apology was submitted by 2:00 P.M., he would take stern action. The Petitioner further alleges that she was not permitted to leave her office until 2:00 P.M., and that some unknown individuals had also been stationed outside, which caused her to fear for her safety. As such, she remained confined to her office until the appointed time. 9. Shortly afterwards, the Vice Chancellor/Respondent No. 3 arrived along with several senior faculty members and officers, including Dr. Manzoor Hussain/Respondent No. 5, Dr. Mujtaba (HoD, Botany), Dr. Azhar Hussain Shah (Controller), Dr. Sajid Gafoor (Assistant Professor, Genetics), Dr. Hakeem Rehmat, HU Security Officer Major Shirin Gul, as well as other unidentified individuals. According to the Petitioner, she was asked by Dr. Manzoor Hussain/Respondent No. 5 to come out of her room and submit a written apology. Upon her refusal, he allegedly shouted at her and attempted to snatch the letter from her hands. She further alleges that upon raising objections, members of the opposing group became physically aggressive and attempted to forcibly drag her to the basement, and in the process, one individual pulled her hair. She specifically named Dr. Manzoor Shah/Respondent No. 5 as having invaded her personal space and attempted to touch her, causing severe distress. In fear of her safety, she states that she locked herself in her room and contacted the District Police Officer (DPO), Mansehra, for immediate security assistance. At approximately 4:45 P.M., the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Shinkiyari, along with the local Station House Officer (SHO), arrived at Hazara University and facilitated her safe exit. In the presence of police, she submitted a written statement to the Registrar/Respondent No. 4. It is further alleged that the Registrar, in the 8 W.P. No. 3563/2017
presence of the opposing group, admonished the Petitioner, stating that she had no right to involve police in departmental affairs and threatened her with serious consequences. The Petitioner concludes that she was left with no option but to leave the premises, and that her safe departure was only made possible through police protection. 10. The Complaint of the Petitioner reached the Federal Ombudsman on 13- 12-2016. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Federal Ombudsman, vide Order dated 28-12-2016, took immediate cognizance of the Complaint, thereby directing the Secretary, Higher Education Department Archives & Libraries Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, as well as SHO Shinkiyari, to submit their report of progress on the Complaint filed by the Petitioner. Only thereafter, the Higher Education Department Archives & Libraries Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (hereinafter referred to as the “HED”), vide Order dated 06-01-2017, instructed that the matter regarding harassment, illegal confinement, physical abuse and threats be forwarded to the Harassment Committee constituted by Hazara University. The record further reveals that, prior to the instructions of HED, Hazara University, Mansehra, had not constituted any Inquiry Committee in accordance with the mandate of Section 3 of the Act, 2010, in order to redress the grievances of victims of sexual harassment at the University. A. What is the legal significance of the findings rendered by the Inquiry Committee of Hazara University, Mansehra ? 11. Perusal of the Inquiry Report dated 06-02-2017 shows that the Harassment Committee comprised of five members, which is not in consonance with the mandate of Section 3 of the Act, 2010. For ready reference, Section 3 of the Act, 2010 is reproduced hereunder:- “3. Inquiry Committee: (1) Each organization shall constitute an Inquiry Committee within thirty days of the enactment of this Act to enquire into complaints under this Act. (2) The Committee shall consist of three members of whom at least one member shall be a woman. One member shall be from senior management and one shall be a senior representative of the employees or a senior employee where there is no CBA. 9 W.P. No. 3563/2017
One or more members can be co-opted from outside the organization if the organization is unable to designate three members from within as described above. A Chairperson shall be designated from amongst them. (3) In case a complaint is made against one of the members of the Inquiry Committee that member should be replaced by another for that particular case. Such member may be from within or outside the organization. (4) In case where no competent authority is designated the organization shall within thirty days of the enactment of this Act designate a competent authority.” (Emphasis added) Section 3(2) of the Act, 2010 mandates in unequivocal terms that the Inquiry Committee shall consist of three members. The composition is further qualified by express criteria, i.e., one member must be a woman, one from senior management, and one a senior representative of the employees (or a senior employee where no CBA exists). The statutory prescription of a three-member panel is deliberate and rooted in legislative intent, which is to ensure a fair, impartial, and gender-balanced inquiry process through a compact and manageable structure. The provision outlines the internal structure of the Committee: one member from senior management, one senior representative of the employees (or a senior employee where no CBA exists), and at least one female member. However, the question arises as to whether this language merely mandates the inclusion of one woman only. It is a settled principle of statutory interpretation that the words of a statute must be given their plain and ordinary meaning, unless such meaning leads to an absurdity or is manifestly contrary to the legislative intent. The phrase “at least one” is unequivocally a minimum threshold, not a ceiling. It denotes that one woman must necessarily be included, but it does not prescribe that only one woman may be included, nor does it preclude the possibility of more than one woman constituting the committee. The intent behind the provision is clear and rooted in constitutional values. It seeks to ensure that complaints of workplace harassment, particularly those brought by women, are received and deliberated upon in an environment that includes female representation, thereby promoting fairness, trust, and sensitivity in the inquiry process. Furthermore, the usage of the word “shall” in this legislative scheme is neither discretionary nor directory; it is indicative of compulsion and must be interpreted as binding in nature unless context dictates otherwise. 10 W.P. No. 3563/2017
12. Although there is no absolute test to determine whether a provision is mandatory or directory, the primary rule is to ascertain the legislative intent as revealed by an examination of the whole Act of 2010. The intent behind enacting the Act, 2010 was to address harassment at the workplace, which is prompted on account of gender and is not limited to sexual harassment. Thereby, a special gender- balanced and gender-sensitive forum was created where harassment could be reported, inquired into, and penalized. The constitution of an Inquiry Committee, as per the mandate of Section 3 of the Act, 2010, is mandatory and compulsory upon an organization, which must necessarily adhere to the prescribed numerical limit as well as the gender-balanced scheme in the constitution of such a structured committee. The legislative intent behind Section 3 was to ensure impartiality, balance, and efficiency through a compact and well-defined three-member body. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of Province of Punjab through Secretary Excise and Taxation Department, Lahore and Others v. Murree Brewery Company Limited (MBCL) and Another (2021 SCMR 305), laid down the test for determining whether a provision is mandatory or directory. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “6. The test to determine whether a provision is directory or mandatory is by ascertaining the legislative intent behind the same. The general rule expounded by this Court is that the usage of the word 'shall' generally carries the connotation that a provision in mandatory in nature. However, other factors such as the object and purpose of the statute and inclusion of penal consequences in cases of non-compliance also serve as an instructive guide in deducing the nature of the provision.” (Emphasis added) 13. In the case of Maulana Nur-ul-Haq v. Ibrahim Khalil (2000 SCMR 1305), the apex Court, while determining whether a statutory provision is mandatory, held that: - “No doubt there exists no faultless acid test or a universal rule for determining whether a provision of law is mandatory or directory and such determination by and large depends upon the intention of Legislature and the language in which the provision is couched but it is by now firmly settled that where the consequence of failure to comply with the provision is not mentioned the provision is directory and where the consequence is expressly mentioned the provision is mandatory.” 11 W.P. No. 3563/2017
Keeping this…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.