KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has set aside the Sindh governor’s order on a teacher’s appeal with regard to his dismissal from service in a sexual harassment case.
The petitioner, Fahad Faruqi, had submitted that he was unlawfully removed from service by Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology by an inquiry committee on sexual harassment charges. He said his appeals were also dismissed by the provincial ombudsman for protection against harassment of women at the workplace in October 2018 and representation of appeal was also dismissed by the governor through the impugned order issued on March 9, 2019.
A counsel for the petitioner submitted that the governor held that he had the power to entertain the appeals against orders passed by the ombudsman under the Section 8(5) of the 2010 Act whereas, the order passed by the ombudsman was under the Section 6(3) of the Act.
The counsel submitted that the petitioner was even not afforded an opportunity to explain his claim
and without holding any hearing etc., a communication was conveyed to him through the impugned letter that his appeal had been dismissed.
The high court was informed that the governor was required to afford an opportunity of hearing and decide the case on merits rather than on technicalities.
An additional advocate general expounded that at least a right of hearing should have been extended to the petitioner.
A division bench of the SHC headed by Justice Mohammad Iqbal Kalhoro after hearing the arguments observed that it was apparent that without affording an opportunity of hearing, the appeal/representation of the petitioner was dismissed by the governor with a view that it could not be entertained in view of the provisions of the Act.
The high court observed that this was not a proper way to dismiss the appeal filed against the order of the ombudsman declining the case of the petitioner challenging his dismissal.
The SHC observed that the governor should have required the petitioner to satisfy him about the maintainability of the appeal first before proceeding to dismiss the same on technicalities, as the case of the petitioner was not only rooted in the law, but in infirmities in reaching the conclusion on examination of facts.
The bench observed that it was a trite law that the cases should be decided on merits rather than on technicalities.
The SHC observed that the governor had the power to hear the appeal by considering the order by the ombudsman to have been passed under the Sub-section (5) of the Section 8 as the petitioner had lost his service on the set of allegations levelled by the respondent which had substantially changed the course of his life.