LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has dismissed a petition filed by a low-cadre employee of the Faisalabad Development Authority (FDA), who challenged his removal from service on charges of sexually harassing a female colleague.

Justice Sajid Mahmood Sethi held that the Punjab ombudsperson and the governor had “acted judiciously and within the four corners of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010,” and that no ground existed for the high court to intervene in writ jurisdiction.

In early 2022, a woman employee, then posted in the FDA’s Legal Cell, lodged a detailed complaint with the Punjab ombudsperson under the 2010 Act, accusing naib qasid Javed Afzal and another colleague, Sannan Hussain, of repeated harassment.

Allegations included vulgar remarks, unauthorised filming, physical contact, and even a gun‑brandishing threat while following her on a motorcycle.

After recording testimony from the parties and two corroborating witnesses, and reviewing CCTV footage showing the accused aiming his phone camera at the complainant, the ombudsperson imposed the major penalty of removal from service on both accused.

The accused challenged the decision by filing an appeal before the governor.

However, the governor, acting as appellate authority, upheld the ombudsperson’s decision.

Before the court, a counsel for the petitioner argued that no act of harassment of women at the workplace was proved against his client. He said the affidavit of the other accused confessing harassment was “mala fide” and made under pressure.

He argued that the complainant elected to pursue the FDA’s internal inquiry committee first and therefore, could not switch to the ombudsperson.

The counsel stated that major penalty cannot be awarded merely on the basis of bald and oral assertions of the complainant in absence of any documentary evidence or proof of sexual harassment.

In his judgement, Justice Sethi observed that the co-accused’s sworn admission that he and the petitioner harassed the complainant went un-rebutted and the petitioner did not file a counter-affidavit nor cross‑examine his co‑accused on the point.

The judge noted that CCTV footage and photographs corroborated the complainant’s version, and two independent witnesses also confirmed repeated misconduct.

On the question of appropriate forum, the judge declared under Section 8 of the 2010 Act a victim may choose either an internal committee or the ombudsperson.

He said the complainant’s written statement to the FDA made it explicit she was abandoning the internal route and had already approached the provincial ombudsperson, a course the statute allows.

Regarding an appeal of the petitioner before the labour court, the judge observed that the petitioner could not run a simultaneous constitutional petition.

The judge concluded that the counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned decisions; therefore, no interference is warranted. Furthermore, the judge ruled, the case law relied upon by counsel was distinguishable and consequently, not applicable to the present matter.

The judge dismissed the petition being devoid of any merits.

Published in Dawn, June 29th, 2025