K-Electric (KE) Chief Executive Officer Moonis Alvi on Friday stepped down from his position, according to a disclosure submitted to the Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX).
In July last year, the provincial ombudsman for protection against harassment of women ordered the removal of Alvi for harassing a former chief marketing and communication officer of KE and also directed him to pay Rs2.5 million to the complainant in compensation.
Alvi, however, had denied the charges and vowed to challenge the decision of the ombudsman before an appropriate legal forum.
“Syed Moonis Abdullah Alvi has tendered his resignation from the position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of K-Electric Limited,” stated the disclosure, dated February 6, submitted to the PSX and available to Dawn.
The PSX was informed in “accordance with Section 96 and Section 131 of the Securities Act, 2015 and Clause 5.6.1(a) of the Rule Book of Pakistan Stock Exchange Limited”.
“You are requested to disseminate the information to the TRE Certificate Holders of the Exchange accordingly,” said the form, addressing the chief listing manager at PSX.
In a post on X, Alvi confirmed that he had “decided to step down”.
“It has been an honour to serve an institution so central to Karachi’s life, alongside some of the most resilient and committed professionals I know,” said the former KE CEO, adding that he will “support a smooth transition”.
Following the provincial ombudsman’s decision in July 2025, the KE chief approached the Sindh High Court (SHC), which suspended the ombudsman’s order.
In a subsequent hearing in August last year, the SHC extended its stay against the provincial ombudsman’s decision.
Alvi had also filed a representation/appeal before Sindh Governor Kamran Tessori. On February 3, the governor set aside the order of the provincial ombudsman.
Tessori, after hearing both sides and examining the record, overturned the impugned order.
During the hearing, Alvi argued that the complaint was not maintainable and there was no harassment involved, while the order passed by the ombudsman was based on assumptions.
The complainant in her arguments stated that the findings of the ombudsman’s order were correct and in accordance with law, and there was no requirement under the law to approach any other authority by filing a complaint, and therefore, the question of maintainability did not arise.
