ISLAMABAD: The Presidency on Tuesday rejected a representation filed by former vice chancellor of the Health Services Academy (HSA) Dr Shahzad Ali Khan, challenging his dismissal from service over workplace harassment charges, though it simultaneously dismantled the legal reasoning used by the federal ombudsperson to convict him.
In a detailed order the President’s Office upheld the penalty of removal from service imposed by the Federal Ombudsperson for Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Fospah) on February 13. However, the top forum observed that the case was fundamentally mischaracterised by the lower tribunal and was, in reality, a bitter personal dispute rather than a textbook instance of workplace sexual harassment.
The verdict noted that Fospah failed to frame distinct issues, ignored the critical chronology of events, and relied on “highly abstract and academic” reasoning. Specifically, the Presidency found that the ombudsperson incorrectly applied the precedent in PLD 2025 SC 354 without establishing factual parallels and failed to reconcile glaring contradictions in Dr Khan’s own testimony - namely, his admission of being “honey-trapped” while simultaneously denying any inappropriate relationship.
“The finding recorded in paragraph 22, to the effect that the onus lay upon the complainant to establish that he did not harass a student over whom he exercised a dominant position, is unsustainable as a matter of law and logic,” the order stated, adding that the relationship between the parties appeared “prima facie mutual and consensual” over a period of roughly five years.
Despite overturning the ombudsperson’s core findings on sexual harassment, the Presidency maintained the punishment on separate grounds.
The order highlighted that Dr Khan did not approach the president with “clean hands”, pointing to his dismissal of his female subordinate’s services on July 18, 2025 - just one day after she registered an FIR against him.
“Such conduct clearly resulted in the creation of a hostile work environment towards the respondent and, in the circumstances of the case, also constituted gender-based harassment against her,” the order read. Since these facts were established on record, the Presidency ruled that the punishment awarded by Fospah was “in any event, commensurate with the petitioner’s conduct”.
The Presidency noted that the core controversy revolves around whether a valid marriage existed between the parties - a question that falls squarely under the jurisdiction of family courts, not workplace tribunals.
The female subordinate claimed they had a verbal nikah and that Dr Khan had promised to marry her, while Dr Khan denied the claim.
“If the respondent feels her marital rights are being denied, she should file a suit for divorce or claim maintenance. Such matters are to be decided by courts of competent jurisdiction under family laws,” the order observed, while similarly advising Dr Khan to file a suit for jactitation of marriage if he denies the union.
Regarding financial allegations where Dr Khan claimed the woman defrauded him of Rs27.44 million, the Presidency did not disturb the ombudsperson’s finding that the allegations lacked documentary corroboration and contemporaneous legal action.
Ultimately, while the Presidency declined to sustain Fospah’s specific findings on sexual harassment, it confirmed the dismissal order, effectively leaving the former vice chancellor removed from service.
Cross-FIRs and legal proceedings between the two parties remain pending in other forums.
Published in Dawn, August 12th, 2026
