HSA VC dismissal upheld in harassment case

Islamabad: The President of Pakistan rejected the appeal of Health Services Academy Vice Chancellor Dr Shahzad Ali Khan and maintained his dismissal from service. The latest order held that retaliatory action against Dr Ayesha Khan created a hostile work environment and amounted to gender based harassment, justifying the punishment of dismissal.

The decision creates a major legal twist in the high profile HSA case. The President’s legal forum clearly observed that this was not established as a case of sexual harassment in the manner found earlier by the Federal Ombudsperson for Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace.

It said the earlier FOSPAH decision contained serious weaknesses, including failure to properly examine the nature of the relationship between the two parties and failure to frame separate questions on several important parts of the dispute.

However, those weaknesses did not save Dr Shahzad Ali Khan from dismissal. The final order stated that his later conduct, especially the abrupt termination of Dr Ayesha Khan, could not be ignored. It held that the retaliatory measures created a hostile work environment for her and amounted to gender-based harassment.

The President approved the recommendation to dismiss Dr Shahzad Ali Khan’s representation and maintain the penalty of dismissal from service. The final decision also strongly observed that Dr Shahzad Ali Khan had not approached the President with clean hands.

It questioned his claim that he had been honey trapped when that claim was examined together with what the decision described as extreme retaliatory measures taken against Dr Ayesha Khan. One important point was the timing of her removal from service.

The record showed that Dr Ayesha Khan registered an FIR and her employment was terminated the following day. The presidential decision said this sequence was important when deciding whether retaliation had occurred.

At the same time, the President’s legal forum strongly criticised major parts of the original FOSPAH reasoning. It said FOSPAH failed to properly establish the timeline of the different complaints and legal actions between the two parties.

It also found contradictions and unanswered questions in the case. The decision said FOSPAH should have separately examined the exact nature of the relationship, whether any employment benefit was linked to a romantic or sexual demand, whether electronic evidence was reliable, what the financial transactions represented and whether Dr Ayesha Khan’s termination was retaliation.

Instead, FOSPAH had mainly framed the broad question of whether harassment had occurred and who was responsible. The President’s legal forum described that approach as inadequate for such a complicated case.

The order went further and stated that not a single specific incident of sexual harassment had been identified in the complaint. It said the sexual harassment conclusion was reached through indirect reasoning instead of being linked to a particular incident.

The forum therefore concluded that the dispute could not properly be treated as sexual harassment on that basis. The decision described the dispute as involving two people who had remained close for several years before serious differences developed.

Dr Ayesha Khan’s position was that the relationship involved marriage or a promise of marriage. Dr Shahzad Ali Khan denied that a marriage existed and claimed he had been honey trapped. The presidential forum said neither honey trapping nor marriage had been established on the record before it.

It observed that questions over whether a valid marriage existed should be decided by a competent family court rather than through workplace harassment proceedings. The case originally started with complaints and counter complaints between Dr Shahzad Ali Khan and Dr Ayesha Khan.

Dr Shahzad Ali Khan accused Dr Ayesha Khan of blackmail, honey trapping, financial fraud, threats and misuse of authority. He alleged that she extracted Rs 27.44 million from him through threats and manipulation for an alleged property investment. He also alleged that she threatened his wife while demanding Rs 30 million.

According to his version, money from the sale of two vehicles, worth around Rs 10 million, was also handed to Dr Ayesha Khan for investment and was not returned. Dr Ayesha Khan denied those accusations. She alleged that Dr Shahzad Ali Khan made personal and inappropriate remarks, discussed private marital matters with her, promised marriage and later took retaliatory action against her.

She also accused him of workplace harassment and alleged physical harassment in an official vehicle. She maintained that her termination and other actions followed her resistance to him and her pursuit of legal action. The original FOSPAH order took a much stronger view against Dr Shahzad Ali Khan.

It found that he had misused his authority while serving as a teacher and later Vice Chancellor, developed an inappropriate relationship with a student who later became his junior colleague and gave her unusual professional benefits. FOSPAH ordered his removal from service after finding quid pro quo harassment.

WhatsApp messages also became an important part of the original case. The record included messages from Dr Shahzad Ali Khan’s number in which Dr Ayesha Khan was addressed with personal names including Zalim Princess and other affectionate expressions. FOSPAH considered these messages important evidence against the honey trap allegation and viewed them as showing personal communication initiated from a position of authority.

The Ombudsperson also found that allegations of financial misappropriation against Dr Ayesha Khan had not been proved through enough documentary evidence. Dr Shahzad Ali Khan challenged the FOSPAH decision before the President. His lawyers argued that Dr Ayesha Khan had given different versions of important events before different legal forums.

They also challenged the use of WhatsApp screenshots, saying the material was incomplete and had not been properly examined through forensic testing. His side denied any marriage, sexual favour or sexual relationship and argued that the finding of quid pro quo sexual harassment was based on assumptions rather than direct evidence.

Dr Ayesha Khan’s lawyers opposed the appeal. They argued that the original order had followed a full inquiry, evidence and cross examination. Her side said the WhatsApp messages came from Dr Shahzad Ali Khan’s registered number and argued that his claim about phone cloning was unconvincing.

They also pointed to her sudden termination after the FIR and argued that the timing supported her claim of retaliation. Her lawyers asked for the appeal to be dismissed and the original punishment to be maintained. The President’s decision ultimately took a different route from both sides.

It did not accept the original sexual harassment reasoning in full. It also did not accept Dr Shahzad Ali Khan’s request to cancel his punishment. Instead, it found that the retaliation and hostile work environment created for Dr Ayesha Khan were serious enough to uphold his dismissal.

The result is that the legal reasoning behind the punishment has changed, but the punishment itself remains the same. Dr Shahzad Ali Khan’s appeal has been dismissed and his removal from service stands.