-Charge of harassment at workplace, in particular, involving allegation of unwelcome sexual advance and sexually demeaning attitudes entailed serious consequences for the accused person, affecting person's life, career and social relationships--

P L D 2021 Lahore 598

Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act (IV of 2010)---

----S. 2(h)---"Harassment"---Scope and effect---Charge of harassment at workplace, in particular, involving allegation of unwelcome sexual advance and sexually demeaning attitudes entailed serious consequences for the accused person, affecting person's life, career and social relationships--- Equally, such deviant behaviour violated social norms, discouraged participation of womenfolk in economic activity and often led to disastrous consequences, hence, called for accountability and strict action.

Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act (IV of 2010)---

----S. 2(h)---"Harassment"---Proof---Quasi-criminal charge of sexual harassment, as a bare minimum, had to be impartial, credible, capable of surviving test of reasonableness and must be reinforced with convincing / independent evidence.

Quasi-criminal charge of sexual harassment, as a bare minimum, had to be impartial, credible, capable of surviving test of reasonableness and must be reinforced with convincing / independent evidence. In the present case, the complainant-petitioner failed to substantiate charge of harassment through independent, convincing and definite evidence. The testimony of the witnesses - claimed as hostile - extended no support to the case of the petitioner, when their assertions otherwise did not bring home the charge of harassment. Accused could not be punished merely on unsubstantiated assertions.

Furthermore, multifariousness of the allegations, mostly manifesting grievances regarding administrative failures, compromised the credibility, seriousness and efficacy of the charges levelled by the petitioner, which fact was evident from perusal of the complaint. Representation filed by the accused before the Governor was rightly allowed where after he was absolved of all charges levelled against him.

High Court observed that since the filing of the complaint, the accused had faced much discomfiture and social disgrace, which constituted sufficient warning, and it was expected that the complainant would demonstrate good and decent behaviour towards colleagues and co-workers. Constitutional petition was dismissed.