Abdul Karim Lashari (Petitioner) VS The Governor Sindh and Others (Respondent)

H*rr.$.t ++eatr- ta u:olt tL* Do c,brr^ t- QAJ-J<-. o 1 8j-

('' KARA CFII

CIJRTIF'IC ATtr OF TI-IE HI GHC o URT OF SIND H.

Gonstitution Petition No'313 of 2024

Abdul Karim Lashari

Vs.

t The Governor of Sindh & Others

HI GH CO URT OFS II\IDH

Co nositi nofB nch.

Mr. Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha Mr. Justice Adnan Karim Memon

Dates of hearing : t7 -12-2024

Decided on :24 -12-2A24

I (a) Judgment approved for Reporting Yes

CER TIFIC A TE.

*/order is based upon or enuxciatet a principle of law certified that the juclgment */decides a question of law which is of first impression/distinguishes/. Over-rules/ reverses/explairrs a previotts decision' ,i

t Strike out whichever is not applicable'

to be taken' NOTE: - (i) This slip is oply to be used when some action is

(ii)If the slip is used, the Reader must attach it to the top of the first Page of the judgment.

(iii)Reader ntust ask the Judge writing the Judgment whether the Jttdgment is approved for reporting'

(iv)Those directions which are not to be used should be deletecl' t

I

I

a.! o

IN TI{E FIIGH COUITT OF SINDFI AT I(AII.ACI{I

[Constitrr tional J u list[ ic tion I ''fl3 .ilP' d la t*t/ C.P.D Nd . of 2a24 ir,t'' t' rit r ('.

.t-

Abdut I(arirn Lashari Irllirlj(r:r,l$llill prirf a furr of Abctul Hadi Lashari, l\'{uslirtr, Adult, Resident of C-28, Block-2, Near Bilal Masiid, Clifton, Karachi. .., r.r,r or'.,..r... ..'.Petitiongr

VERSUS

1 The Governor Sindh Through its Principal Secretar/, Flaving office at Governor I{ouse, Karacl-ri,

2 The Province of Sindh Through its Chief SecretarY

I il' Having office at Sindh Secretariat, I(arachi.

3, The Learned Ombudsman Protectiorr Against Harassment of Wornen at Workplace Provincial Ombudsman Sindh, I(arachi.

4 The SecretarY 'Culture, Tourism, Antiquiliqt & Archives Departtnent Government of Sindh, : .

Having office at Sindh Secretariat, I(arachi.

5 The Director General Antiquities & Arcl'rives Der'n11rnent Government of Sindl'r Flavirrg office at Antiquities House - C/87, Block-2, Near Bilal Masjid, Clifton, I(arachi

6, Mst. Zahida Qadri, Daughter.of Mustafa Mian Qadri, Muslirn, Adult, Flaving office at Directorate General, Antiquities & Archives Hottse - C/82, Block-2, Near Bilal Masjid, Clifton, I(arachi... ,.. ,.. ltespttucleuts CONSTT TUTIONAL PETITION UN DEIT ARTIC LE199 0Il

THE CONSTI TUTIO N OF PAI(IST AN 1,973

>fl

IIN THE HIGH COURTOF SINDH KARACHI

Before:

Mr. |ustice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, |udge Mr. Adnan Ul Karim, Memon, J, t

CONST. PETITION NO.D-313 OF 2024

Petitioner Alrdul Karirn Lashari sou of Abclul Hadi Lashari through Malik Altaf Hussain, Aclvocate.

Respondents No.1 to 4 Through Mr. Ali Safdar DeePar, Assistarrt Advocate General Sindh.

Responclent No.5 Tllrough Mr. Ashraf Ali Lashrai, Law Officer.

Responclent No.6. Mst. Zahida Qadri, through Mr.

Shahbakht Pirzada, Advocate.

I

DAte of Flear ing 17,12.2024.

I

Date of Announceurent 24J22024

ORDER

'rl

Nluhantnrud l{arim Khan Agha, !, The Provincial Ombudsmdrr of Sirrdh vicle orr-ler clated 23.09.2021 found the petitioner/appellant Abdul Karim Lashari guilty of sexual harassment under the Protection Agaiust Harassrnent of Wonren at the Workplpce Act, 2010 (the Act) and passecl the following per-ralty agalrst hirn at paragraph 43 of the irnpugned order as unrler:- " For tlrc foregoing fncts, cit'umtstttnces nnd ndmitted WmtsApp tncssflges, tlu con4tlniturrtt lms proucd lrcr nllegntiarrs of sexurl lmrnssrrrent nnd mentnl figony ngnittst tlw ncutsrd, Conseqtterfily, ncursed Ahrhil Knreem Lnslmri is petmlized rrnder Section 4, sub-section 4(ii)(t) of tlrc Act, 20:10 and is remoued froru llns seruice instantly. Office is dire ctud to trnnstnit tlrc colly of instntrt order to tlrc Scuetnry, Antiryitie.s md Arclrcology, Gouentttrcnt of Sindlt, tlrc Clief Secretnry, Gouernrnent ,f Sindh wtd tlrc Accowrtntrt Genernl Sfudlt fo, in.fonnntion nnd A cotrrylinnce of tlw order in letter nnd spirit ruitlttn 30 dnys ruitlwtt fnil undu intimntion throttglr tlrc Registrnr of tlis offtce."

2.The relevant facts are that allegeclly tl're complainant hacl been subjecter-l to several unwelcomc sexual gestures, unwauterl deliberate touchirrg anrt offcnsivc relllal'ks by the accusccl fronr July 2018 to March 2019,lilce babe, sweetheart arrtl horrey etc. The complaiuaut tolerater-l thc accusecl's offcnsivc attitutle anrl although lre stoprpcd his uuwantccl verbal alrrl physical acts but he oftcn turncrl work tliscussiotrs in to intlecent-

>1 t

scxual topics, colnlllcnts itbolrt hcr pursonal life, clothirrg irnr,l appcarciltce. On the complaittant's relusal to accept the r-rffer of scxual relatir-rrrship with the accused, he started spreaeling false rumors about their relationsl'rip in a^ the department which destroyecl her image rnakirrg her work environtncnt offensive ancl intolerable. The cornplainarrt's first interaction with accused was about clepartrnental prornotions and then he started calling her but sl're respecter-l him as a senior. The accused sornetirnes calleel cornplainant late at rright but she clid not rcsponcl to him anci often asketl the complainant to urr-,et up with him br-rt she always re,fuser-1. The accuser-l during his first call trrlkecl about complainant's hijarb ancl was keeu about her naqa[:, getup anr-l al]pearance arrd oftcr-r saicl that shc is educater-l but wears naqab. The cornplainant cleveloperl professional working relationship with accusecl in 2018 clue to his cooperative nature, being helpful arrd efficient. Initially, accuscd acted decently to porhay his cleApr irnage but after gaining her trust, he rnade sexual overtures to her. In t ,- 2018, once the cotnplainant was at a mechanic shop r1cclr Bilirwal House

I .'. ,',

,,'r-d for repairing Itcr car, ancl accuscc{ crlrrrL. there anrl askeci her to wait in his iar, ancl though she refuser-l, but he insistecl her to sit in his car. Irr the tnouth of July 2018, the complainant antl accuser-t went to Hyclerabacl togetl'rer, as she wanteci to visit Sindh Public Servicc Comrnission lrut was hesitating to go alonc lreing he.r first visit. 'I'he accuseti harl also sorle work at l{yderabacl, therefore, colllplainprrt askccl him that sl'te warrtecl to follow his car in her car but he sairl that they can rir-ie together anr-l she accepted his offe'r being a trustworthy colleague, I-lowever, on the way to Hyclerabad, the accused proposecl to the cornplainant but she r-leclined. Then olt their way back to Karachi, accuse.cl helcl complairrant's hand without her consent and she shouter-l to leave hcr as they car-r lalk. The accuseci apologizec{ but the cornplainant was upsct ancl said that they were not compatible clue to tl'rcir family backgrouncl ancl shc wantecl to I pursue lte'r career. Thereaftt r', accuser-l usecl to follow the complainarrt ancl stand in her way, q.ncl took pl-rotographs of the places wheru" she was present without her consent ancl therr showed thcrn to her. Therefore, complainant talkccl to her senior who ar-lviscll accusecl to refrain from such activities, but hc continuer.l his acts ancl she ignorcrl hinl to save her job and survive in the r-lepartrnent. In Felrruary 2019, the accusecl sent clriver naurely Karirrr Baba tcl thc cornplainant to reconcile but she refused. Thereafter in office Lrarking, the coruplainant found tl'rat there was

>fs

pctrol in hcr car though its tirnk was klckcr-l, clrlr-l after four rlays, the headlight of her car wils also broke.n, so, she corrlronter-1 thc. accusL.ct but / he swore to his late mother thtrt l-re hacl not done such things. Therefore, a* oI1 uext clay the cornpl;rinant saicl sorry to accusr.d but he uttered inappropriate sexual re rflcllks. One colleague Ali Lashari askecl the cornplaiuaut about accusc'cl arncl she sharccl cletails who then scolded the trccused. On 27,A3,2A19, the accuser-l clistributerl his wctlcling cards ancl then office stafl'starter.l talking about her chtrracter irnd ttignity. In April 2019 the Deputy Director asked the cornplainant about her secret rnarriage with accusecl, as accused harl shown l-rirn picturcs of her broken watch but she then clar:ifiecl that accusecl hacl grabbecl hcr hancl forcefully on 11.01 .2079 aud broke her watch. On 21.03.2019, the con'rplainaurt and accused were working irr Directorate office on the sites of Makli ancl hc tried to kiss her but shr. saveel herself. Ms. Alina, Sub-Engineer had rnoved i .-\

haiAssment complaint against accusecl iu March 2077 that he has no ,r . cotrtrol upon himself. The Dcpartrnent then sought expl;rnation frorn the ,"r'- -.1

I

- acJuse.l blrt hc hael filed his writterr aprology. Ms. Rulrab Azhar macle verbal contplaint in Decer:rber 2017 that accuscd not only ulisturbed her but forced her to work with him rrnci her transfer orr.ler was also issuell with the assistance of Assisternt Director, thcrcfore, shc inlonnec{ the entire facts to the DC who warner-1 accuse.d verbally arrd rccallccl the said order. The accused always r-lemanclecl kiss fronr the comprlainant upron which she became annoyecl and blockctl l'ris cell phclne nurnber. Due to the adve'rse effects of harasstrte'nt incir-lents, complainant has been suffering f rorn severL] clepression and has k:st weight. TI're cornplainant could not sleep tlue to nightltlarLrs as she cc;uld hcar accusr.d's voicc. tl'rat she is the type of girl who can sit in anyorlc's car rrnel if he harl forcer-l her, he coulrl have hatl his way with her (sexually). Initially, the complainant hacl visited the office of Ombudsmall to file cornprlaint but staff harl ar-{vised her to t approach her high-ups first, therefore, on 2L).03.2011), she. movccl l'rer complaint to Director Ccueral but of no avail. Eventr-rarlly the cornplainant was courpcllerl to f ile a cornplaint against the accusccl with the Ornbudsman.

3.Af ter appreciating the eviclence on recorcl, corrsil{cring the clocuments on record ancl hcaring the parties the Provincial Orlbur-1sman Sindh ftlr the Protection Agairrst Fltrrclssrnerlt of wonlen at the vrrork place i

}YY

n

(the Onrllurlsnr.rn) cL)nvictecl arrrrl scnterrccrl thc .rppullirnt/pctititttteL as mentioned earlier in this Orrler. Subsequcntly the appellant/petitiotrer / filed a representation against the aforesaid impugner-l Order of the a.

Ornbudslnan before the Govel'l'ror of Sinr-lh uncler Section 9 of the Act wlriclr was declinecl vicle orcler clatecl 22.A6.2023. Thereafte'r the Sindh Culture, Tourisrn, Antitluitics & Arcl'rives Departrnent, Gclvemment of Sirrrth vir-le ordoer clated 01.01 ,20?4 renlover-l the appellrrrrtf pretitioner from sen,ice in accorr-lance with the irnprugnecl orrlers.

4.Thereirfter the appellarrt/ petitioncr has filcd this pre tition agirinst all of the aforesaicl juclgrner"rts/orclurs which wc- intenel to clisp-rost-. of through this one corrllllon orrler.

5.Learnecl counsel for the appellant/ pc.titioner contencled that the Copnplainant (Mst.Zahicla Qadri) had already malle a cornplaint against i ,l the appellant/petitioner to thc heacl of l-re'r departrnent which was still ," pending so could not approach the On'rbuelsrnan; tl"rat urrcler S. (4) (2) of " the Act the Or:rbuclsnlan hacl no l-rower to rcrllove thc' appellant/ petitioner from scrvice ancl that he cor-rkl or-rly reconllncncl the retnorral of the appellarrt /pctitiorrer which recollltlterrrlation nlay or nlay not be complied with by the appellants/prgliliont-.rs rlepartrnerrt; everr othcrwise trasecl orl tlre evir-lence or1 recorel the complainant harl failer.l to F]ro\/e sexual harassrnent at the work pio.u arrr-l the Ornbuclsrl'tan hatl misreatlf rnisinterpreterl the evirlcnce on recorcl ancl as such the inrpugned orcler of the Ornbudsman be. set asicle which woul-l lcar1 to the other orclers against hirn also falling as the super structure (the irnprugned Orcler of the Ombuclsman) upr)rl which they wel'e Lrasecl har-l collapsed and as such thc.y also fell e'rlorrg with the. impugrrccl order. In suppt-rrt of his corrtentions he placctl reliance on the cases of Trading Corporation of Pakistan V Devarr Sugar Mills Limited (PLD 2018 SC Bztt) atrcl Kinza t Anwar V Office of the Ornbudsman for protection agairrst harassrnent of women at the work place (2022 CLC 1,477 Isl.).

6.On the other hancl learneel AAC ancl le amcct coltusel for the cornplainant contendeul that the fact that the complainant har-{ tnacle a complainant before her heael at the place of her work r-licl not debar her frotn approaching the Ombuclsmarl; that the Ornbuclsrnatt's orcler was fully in accordance with the law irnll that tl'ris court herd no power iu its

>1 r

constitutiorraI jr,rrisrliction t"o rc.-rsscss the cviclcncc on rccorr-[ ittrd th;tt thc inrpugr"rer.l orelers all Lrc uphelcl. In support of thcir couteutiotrs they pracer-l reliance on the crlse of Raja Tanveer Safdar V Mrs Tehrnina Yasrneen a, (PLD 2A74 SC 7e5)

7.We have heard the parties, perused tl-re rnaterial irvailal:lc on record ancl consie{erc.cl the case larw citecl at the bar.

B. We find that this petition in cssence rcvolves arouncl threc rrrain issues (n) whcther or not thc complainarnt coulcl rnake a comprlainant against appellant/petitioner before her own cleprartrnent as well as rrlove the Omtruelsman unr-ler the Act, (lr) whether the Omburisnlalr hacl the power to remove the apprellant /petitiorrer frorn service unr-{cr the Act orlce the appellant was founel guilty for an offence unrlcr the Act and ( C) W[ether this court irr its Constitutional jurisr-lictiorr can ret-rssess tl-re ,r frorn a factual perspcctivc.

"riLur..e

!, Turning to the first issue whether or not the cornplainant could make a icomplainant against appellant/petitioner before her own department as well as rnove the Ombudsman under the Act.

9.It is an aclmittecl positiorr that the comprlainant irritially made a cornplaint to the DC of her clcpartment about the appellants/pctitioners sexual harassrnent or1 28.03.2019. Flgwevr.r it appcars that very little effective action came from-her cornplainarrt to hcr tlepartrncnt which still rernains pending as of toclay alm<;st 4 years later rulrcrt uttdar 5,4(4) of tlrc Act tlw lnquiry Comtnittee of t'lw depttrhnettt ougli to lrnue contpleted its hqutry nnd stilttttitted its fintlings nnd rccortuilendntians to tlrc cttrttltt'ttttt ttutlrcrittl ruithh 30 dnys,

10.Duc. to this sluggish action by her own elcpartnrcnt irr to her most se.rious complaint in ordcr to scc.k rerlrcssarl of hu" grievatrces 3 rnonths

I

later on 13.06.2079 (r-lesprite the Irrrluiry Committecs de.rrlline of 30 elays) the complainant sc.irt a complainant to the Omburlsman rcgarelirrg sexual harassrnent rncterer.I out to her by the apprellant/ pctitioner uncter the Act.

11.The helplessrless of the complainant is set out in her letter as under in material part;

"lt has talcen ilrc a long time to tttuster ilp lhe courilge to file this coutltlailfi ss tltis is n aery sctiotts sittttrtiort to tne. I lmue been

subiettt'd to n serirc of u.,l',brtl nrrcl pltysicttl ttt,ts cottstittttt scrvsl httrnssutrttt. To rnnitttuitr frottr 'tlte !tis sile tltat decontnr of the ittegritty nttd ffice I haae sriltttritted the applicatiort to tlrc sertior lttflttfr$enrent, aryd requestcd to howeaet, fio actiotr ha,s been takeir forrn a,, ;'lrrquiry Cornrrittee,,, so far, tlrcrefore, I,fit the Proaincial Departtnent of omltorlr"ma,r,,, filing it in (bolcl ar-1lecl).

12' In such like cases usually thc c{octrine of clectio. kicks i. as was elaboratecl in the case of Tracling Corporation of pakista. (supra),T5at is ollcL) the complninant chose to make a conlplaint bc,fore hr.r dcpart,rental Inquiry cotnmittee she was bitrrecl fronr rlaking a collrplai*t to a.y .the.r fora.

13' In cotrsidering this cloctrinc' we find that its erpplicability will bc based on the particular facts ancl circurnstances of each case. This case it'tvolvl'c1 a case of seriolls sexual harassmc-nt at the work place r,rrhich was a very ctifficult issue for the lacly complainant to broacS i, the first place, Nel"er the less she was brave enough to do so. The questior-r the. emerges t whether the cornplainant is tiecl to her original conrplainant which is ittptgtueding very sluggishly (anel certainly in violatio* of tle ti*rc, Ii'e $iv1'n of 30 ctays under s.4 (4) of the Act for thc Irrrlgiry Com.rittee to nrake its fin.litrgs arrti recoltllnc'nclations) irr a nrale cl.r,inate4 cle,.rtmert which she will Ilavc to attetrcl claily ancl cornc farce to face wit6 the p.re1so11 she has accusecl clf scxual h.rrassment which woulul be p-rarticularly uncotrrfortable for the complaiu.rttt if..not traunratic. It has collre irr eviclence that the cotnplainant suflerccl sleepless .ights a.rl lost wcight clue to the sexual harassmcut lror which she woulcl have received littlc support from her other tnalc colleagues who might well have ostracizer-l her' Thus' in our view sc'xual harrrssment cases canrrot be treater.l like orc{inary cases where the d,ctrinc of elcctiorl woulci apply,

14' sexual harasstneut in the' work place has only rccc.^tly [:een gruclgirtgly acceptcd ir-r Pakistan which is a rnale r{orninatecl s.ciety ancl I. wolren who suffcr tht' satne ca.llot be Ieft at thc rnercy of arr i,te.ral cornplaints system which is sluggish ancl is pcrceiycrl to favour the ,rale sex' Scxual htrrasstuent at the work placc, or ally wherc clse fr-rr tl.lat ntatter' is a separate species of a serious offence altrrgether ancl *rust be. viewet{ frorrr a tlifferent lens if wc are to move forw.rrd as , pl.ogrcssive society where trll people are trcatecl as eqllal u1.1er the co,stitutiorr w6ilst ernbracing the concept of all Islarnic welfare statc whcre \Ar()rne * rrre afforderl up ,lost resprect a,r.r rrcrcl i^ very higrr estec.,r.

ital(/PS

)-YI

I I. ,As sr-rch vvc linrl that irr suxr-r;rl harr;rssnlrjllt c.tscs whct'c bhc rcrtrer-ly of a cr-llrprlailt before the r-leptrrtnrent is cxtrct:rcly sluggish irtttl oftcn ileifective the conceprt of election will not Lre strictly trprplietl atrtl we fincl a the casL, of Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Supra) tlistirrguishable based on the particular facts arrr,l circurnstarrces of this ca1se. In esseuce the cornplainant in this case seerlrs to have alrandonecl her cotnplaiuant as it appearecl to be going l1o where and Lrp')or1 finding out of the possibility of filing her cornpliainrlnt bcforc the Ornbuc{stnau maule a colllPlaint before the Ornbudsrnarr uncler the Act which gave hcr a lllol'e private, effacious and speerly remcdy in connection with a highly scnsitivc atrr-l prcrsonarl nratter. Namely, scxual harasstnctrt.

16, As such wc clo not finct the rloctrine of clectiou tr: be aprplicable baser.l on the particular facts arrr-l circumstarrces of tl're case erncl find that the iOrnbudsrnal untler thc Act was lawfully erble to ar-liudicatc tl're ll

I

I complainarrt's cornplainirnt which was urirde to hirl tttrtler the Act.

,'i- .nu

Turnirrg to the second issue on whether the Ombuclsrnarl had the power -to remove the appellant /petitioner frorn service under the Act once the appellant was found guilty of an offence under the Act.

17.The case of the appellrrnt/pretitioner is that thc lnr.ltriry Con-rrlittee under tl-re Act only had the powcr to make recommendations rathcr thau pass orclers uncler S.4 (1) sub-sc.ction (i).irnd (ii) of thc. Act .rftLl not to pass orders in respect of the pcnalties to be irnposed if a persotl was folttrcl guilty of an offerrce uuder tl're Act.

18.Section 4(4) sub-scctiorr (i) ancl (ii) ancl (5) and (6) of the Act arc set out Lrelow for easo of refcrcllce;-

4 (4) The Inquiry Comrnittee sl'rall suLrrnit its finclings and recorrll'rcnrlations to the Compctent Authority within thirty clays of the ilitiation of inrluily. If the Inquiry Conrmittee finds the accused to be guilty it shall rccortunend to the Competent L Authority for irnposing one or more of the following penalties:

(i)Minor penalties:

(a)censul'e;

(1r) withhr-lkiing, for a specific pcriocl, protnotiorr or iucremcnU

(c)stoppage, for a spccific pcriod, at au efficiency L'rar irr,the tirnc-scale, otherwise tharn for uufitness to cl'oss such trar; ancl

(cl)recovcry of the cornpellsatiorr p,rya[:lc to thc cornplainatrt froul pay or any othcr solll"ce of the accusetl; ,

t

>1 s

(ii)hlajor penalties:

(a)rer-luctiotr to a lower post or tirnu.-scale, or to a lower stage irr a tiure-scale;

(b)compulsory retiremcnt;

(c)removal from service;

(d)rlismissal from service; and

(e)Fine. A prart of the fine carr be usecl as conlpensation for tl're complaiuatrt. In case of the owllL.r, tl're ?ir-,* shall 5e payable to the complainant.

(5)The' cornpetent Authority shall impose the penalty tecolnruended by the Inquiry Committee uncler sulr-seciiur-, f+l withirr olle week of the receipt of thc reconllrlr-.ncltrtious of tire Inr"1uiry Committee.

(6)The Incluiry Comrnittcc shall rneet or1 regular barsis apl lro,itor the situation regularly until they are satisfied that their recomfilendations subject to decision, if any of Competent Authority and Appellate Authority rrave been implernented.

I

19.I Another kc'y section of the Act to note at this jurrcture is Scctiorr I which provides as uncler;

S.8 "Otnlntdsnmtt to tttqttirt' ittlo t:otttltlnituttrt; (1) Atty tttrltltulr,t, sltnll lmut llu' opttiott to prcJbt' n conrltlnhmrtt eitlter to tltc Otrtbudsfiutn or tlrc luquiry C oruttri t t te.

20' h"r this casL-'as metrticlrterl trl.rclve bcc;rusc thc Inquiry cclmnrittee was not provieling an aclequatc, elficacious anrl speer-ly remcrly the complaiuaut in her letter was compelled to move the Olrbudsnran ulr-ler S.tt for rcdressal of her grievance which we havr. irlrcarly founcl tp bg perurissiblc basr.d on the particulrtr facts and circumstances of this case ancl in effect alraudonetl her conrplaint beforc. the Incluiry comnrittee which seetned to Lre going uo where bcfore any clecisiop har{ lreen r:rac1e. by the Incluiry cotnmittee. As such the ctrse of Ifinza Anwar (Supra) is distinguishecl. Had the h'rtlr,riry Comnrittee rnovecl faster a11d passecl a decision within the tir:re frame set out for it uncler the Act it is dotrl-rtful l" whether the Ombullsuran couL-l have beun appro;rchccl uneler thc Act. This, however, was not the casc. The Cornplainant's conrplarint therefore ceasecl to bc'before the Incluiry Comnrittec and as such the r1r-rcstion of recollllllendation t{oes uot arisr'. Instearr{ the complirilapt was Lrefrlrc the Ornlruclsrnan

21.As such the cot:rplainant's case was clealt wittr ulclc,r the Act 5y the Ombuc{srnan.

ILt^X/p-.a

E

L7 1

22' scctio, lL) tlf tJtr: ,'\ct sr-:t-r.ut thc f)'rlr,rr:j,rcr,, rcprr6{ucccl fls Llnclcr |rilr*cl.s vrrrricrr arc lor, L,rtlrL uf rulcr.cltcLr;

,-S.10. polvers of Ornbudsnran.

The o,rbu.lslllctlt s.h.rll T- for trre p_urpose of trris po'^rLrrs cls are vester-l i, a civil iourt uncrer Act trre lrave trre same v-,r codr. of Civi] ,HTIL:'n:1.,fi:* lact 1e0st i,, ,o,p*.t or rrre roilowi.g i) su'r'u,o,irg,rl.l e'for.cing trre attencla,cc. of any . persou a,rr cxa,rini,g r,

ii)'" Co*"rperi*g t'e pror-ructio^ oatrr; ^irn of evicrcrlce;

iii)Receiving Jvicleltce or1 iu) Issui.g clr,r*rissi,n fu,afficlavits;

v)Entering any prr*,r^,ir*s ttr* u*ar:ri.aticlr.r of witnc,sse$ f<_rr thr, prpypose i,sprc6lio^ ,r, i,vestigatio,, of lraking ally t^c O.rbr_rcJsrl-rarl e,t,,r alry prenrises wrrere a *u*ur.. t. Lrelierre t'at i*fo'rnatio* rerc'varlt ^itt-l trrc case nlay be fou'cr; any vi) T'e o'rbu.rsrrlar srra, t-,nr* a..l tt-,e srr,le powers Higrr Court to pu,isrr ary perso, as trre foi its conte.rpt.

- (2) o,rbudsman shall while. nraki,g ^ars ; 'compraint may inrpose the decisiorl on the ory- bpecified in *ut-**.iio,, or the nfrrro,. or major penarties 4 (+) o? sectio, n";,^irr.r.r ,,_ 4 ar'ie.ti) ! N: -It is abs,lr-rtely clear thercfore that after heari,g tr,cr crecicrirrg contplaint u.clcr the trre Act try rri'tue of sectio.

10(2) thar the onrbuds'ran had the power to intpose any of the nrinor or rnajor penarties specified in sub-section 4(4) which we have arrearry reproduccrl i*cluclecl the abo'e wrricrr Power to ret*ove tlr. appella.t fronr scr,ice u^dr.r section

(4)(ii) (c ) of the 4 Act which he rlid thr.ugri his ir:rpug.cr-l .rtrcr..

24.Ijer.rce wc fincl thc r'lpugnccl orcrer of trrc.

accordance with lar,v.

onrlru.rsr,a, t. be i,

Turning to the third jurisdiction can reassessissue whether this c'urt i' its Constitutio.al the evid*r..i rro* u f;;uui purrpective. 25' It is we' settlcd by r10w trr.t trris cr-rurt i, its Co,stitutio.al jurisclictiorurl cattnot ctrter i,to a. cxar,ination clf ftrctutrr c,,tr.over.sies I was helcl in the casc' tlf Raja Tanveer safdar (suprtr) as case uttcler the Act wrricrr wi,s arso a wlrere [he appella,t/pc-titionc.r wa^tecr ro crerve i.to a factual controvel'sy by cxami,i,g the c'viclcnce where it was helr-l ils urrcier" in rnaterial part;

"72' There is nnother intportatft ruith referencc to ttii issue in,rc itrstnnt cfise. we notr ,nrr- ii,nt co,tltlaint ltefote tlre ouilsttdsfiu|tt No.1 lr,espoude*t fireit her tutricti u)tts- tlu,tr ,trntir,,g*, tlrc petitiotrir before trte cour,r,,o, pu,jub. br1 foruurc of fnct ,ri1,r,.r nuu, trttstfor,,-,,,, ,r* rtnrties urrr rca,t it,ri,. ,r,irtr,rrt, for tt /rrctutrr

MAI{]FS

t

t{t'tt't'tttittttitttt. Tltt'rr'.1'rtt't', tJrc Onlr,r o.f tlrc Cttt,trttor u,ill lle tlte .l'itrttl ordt'r ott tlu'J'ttctttttl sidt:, tulrit'lt cfittttut be tltan challctryed beJ'ore tlrc Higlr Court itt tottstiltttiortnl juristlfutiotr itt tlrc form tuul -# sttLs tilne t of n sacond nppeill ort tlrc fncts oJ' tltt cssr,. The Lligtr at- Court cfinnot intetferc irr its cortstitutionnl juristlictiorr on lindings of facts recorded ltu tlrc catrrptetutt court, lribunnl or autlrcritq ttttless tlrc fintlings of fnct nre so peraerse ilfid trot bascd ott tlrc cuidr:ttct: tulticlt ruotilil rt:sult in utt u'ror of taru rrnd thrrc, justified irtterferttft'c. Thereforc, for all intertts ttud purposest the fnc:tunl cotttrat)trs1 L-otiles to stt end after tlrc Ordcr o.f tlrc Goucnror, ntrd if, tlrera is ntry ytristlictittttd ili'ct or crror rttttl yrttt:atlrrrnl itttltrttltrirtirs of tlrc Jhct-.finiliug Jontnt arilry tlwtt ttw Higtt Cottrl cnt itrtt:rJi:t:t,. ltr t,nriotts ttttttttrs suclt {ts srruict', fmnily, tnx, mtd utstottts lhis Cottrt lttts cttttsistt:rttly restricfud tlrc High Court's poluers e xL,rciscrl itt tlrc cottstitrttiotml jurisdictiotr irt tcrttts of delentittittg tlrc ftctttnl controucrsll ulile shtuiltrttrcotrcly tnltnttt^irtg tlw donutin of ttrc fict-finding.fontus. 73,1n tlis cnser ule hfiuc Evtttttined the urit pe titiort fitetl by tlrc Petitiotrcr wlrcreilr tlrc grounds rutised are fnctunl in rntture and similttr to the grounds raiseil before this Court, uhich wc nlso lachml in uature. Tltc t1uestiorr urged bq tlrc Petitiorrcr before this Court nnd High Court is rulrcther a case of scxuttl lmrflssfiretfi was ,,fnAde out, tuhicl4 in our opinion, is bnsttd ofi flpprec'itttiott of tlrc t !caiilurce. So, tltc fnctunl fintlirrgs u! bttth for a'belou) cfitutot be chullenge d betot'c the tligh Court. 't'lis Cott rt /rrrs rrlsr: lrcld llmt llu, - clostre a.f litigntiott is n .lirtttlnnn:trtul yrirrcirtlt: .iLtr "[rtir trial rtrd thte /,,'oct'ss itt te ntts of Article l0-A o.f llrc Ccrrrs tittttitttr l,y crrttittg ttn t:J.-lbctiue nttd e.f'l:icit'ttt bgnl ttrrlt'r, nttd tln,courls slruttld trct tuutt,L'(,sstrrily tttile rL)ant for fitrtlrcr rclitigttirrg issrrr,s lltil ntttv lt,ni lo tttistrst'aJ ttrc lmp ntul trrrucsty o.f jrtstice," (bold adderl)

26.We have glarucccl at the cviclencc and clo rrot find the, finrlings clf fact to be PL:'rversc aucl not bascr-l on tfuc e.viderlce which woulel result in an error of law autl thus, justificd irrterfererlce. Thus, wr. clcclinc to look into this rnatter further in our collstitutional juriscliction.

In conclusion.

1.Basecl on thc particular facts anel circurnstanccs of this c;lsc we finel the dclctrinc of clc'ction to be inapplicablc unller the Act unless a clecision has already bcen rendercc{ by uither the Ombuclsmern arrd the Inquiry Cournri Ltc,,e.

L 2. We finel that the Ombur.lsmtrn hacl full powcr unr-L.r the Act to remove the appcllant/petitiorrer frorn service

3.We finr-l that in our constitutiontrl jurisr-liction wc cannot go into factual coutroversies auel minr-rtely cxamine thc cviricrrce on rccord.

4.The pctition is rlisrnisscd ancl the' irnpr.rgnerl Orrlels of thc Ombuclslllal'I, Covernor anr-1 Cr-lrrcmment clf Sindl'r Culture, tourism and Antitluities auci Archivcs cleprartnlent are all r-rplrelcl arrcl the appellar-rt/ petitioner stanr{s rerlovecl frurm sen, icr..

I

3 ol

5.Before parting rt itir this Orcler wr-r hr:reb\, r.lir ct.t t6at all org.rtrizations i5 r'lel'i ncd in the Act nr.rhc tlrcir inquiry Cotnntittees ttnd*:r the Act efficient, effectivc. antl spreecly alcl make their findings ancl recommendations withirr t6e time frame given in the Act (namely 30 days from initiation of the t- Conrplaint) so that the choice of making a cornplaipt to an Inquirl' Contnlittee under the Act cloes not beconte a1 illusio*ary Paper right rvhich fails to reach timely decisions irr such sensitive matters otherlvise the aspect of an Inquiry Comrnittee nrentiorred in the Act rvill virtually be rendered redundant.

6.The Cor'ernnrent of Sindh shall ensure that all its cti'isiorls, departrrrents or other Organizations under its coltrol;

(i)bring to the atterrtion of all their rt,orkers, ernployees etc especiallv fen'lale orlcs the averilability anr-l aprprlic.rlrilitv oi the protr.ctjon Against Harassr:renl of \\/uu-,*,', ..t the lvorkprlace Act, 2010;

(ii)tl'rat thcl, all h.rve flrnctionirl, effuctive, efficicnt anr-l sfrcg{1r inr.luiry cumnrittees rr,hich finr-lings anr-l recolllmenclations nreet thr-, tir:re franre .-t 1i giveu in the Act.

I l'

7 Thc Registrar shtrll sencl & copr1, of this orcL.r to thc Chief Sccrctary Got'ertttuctrt of Sintlh r,vho shall enslll'c comprliirnce with prarragropi, 6 of the conclusion to this orr-ler.

8.The pctition stanrls r-lisposcrl of in the alrgl,g ternrs.

r HEAD OF . tsENCHES 7.- -t ) trlzl

UDGE

t

HAIVPS

fi