Presidency Upholds Dismissal of Former VC, Exposes Flaws in Harassment Case

Islamabad, August 12, 2026 – In a landmark ruling that balances justice with Islamic principles of fairness, the Presidency has rejected the representation of former Health Services Academy (HSA) Vice Chancellor Dr. Shahzad Ali Khan against his dismissal. While the order upheld the penalty of removal from service, it simultaneously exposed serious flaws in the case brought by the Federal Ombudsperson for Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Fospah).

This decision reaffirms the nation’s commitment to protecting the dignity of women and upholding the sanctity of Islamic values, while also ensuring that no one is wrongfully convicted under flawed legal reasoning. The Presidency’s detailed order serves as a beacon of justice in a system that must always be guided by truth and faith.

The Presidency’s Verdict: A Balance of Justice and Faith

The President’s Office, in a carefully crafted order, upheld the penalty of removal from service imposed by Fospah on February 13. However, the top forum observed that the case was fundamentally mischaracterised by the lower tribunal. It was, in reality, a bitter personal dispute rather than a textbook instance of workplace sexual harassment. This distinction is crucial, as it prevents the misuse of laws meant to protect women from being weaponised for personal vendettas.

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. This highlights the need for our judicial and quasi-judicial bodies to adhere strictly to Islamic principles of evidence and fairness.

Flawed Legal Reasoning Exposed

The order stated: “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.” This observation underscores a fundamental principle of justice: the burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused. The relationship between the parties appeared “prima facie mutual and consensual” over a period of roughly five years, further complicating the narrative of harassment.

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 and constituted gender-based harassment. 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.”

A Question of Marriage, Not Harassment

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. The Presidency wisely observed: “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.” Similarly, Dr. Khan was advised to file a suit for jactitation of marriage if he denies the union.

This ruling reinforces the sanctity of marriage in Islam and the importance of resolving marital disputes through proper Islamic legal channels, not through workplace harassment tribunals.

Financial Allegations and the Path Forward

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.

FAQ: Key Questions Answered

Why did the Presidency uphold the dismissal despite flaws in the case?

The Presidency found that Dr. Khan’s conduct in dismissing his subordinate’s services just one day after she filed an FIR created a hostile work environment and constituted gender-based harassment, justifying the punishment on separate grounds.

What does this ruling mean for workplace harassment laws in Pakistan?

This ruling reaffirms that workplace harassment laws must be applied with Islamic principles of justice and fairness, preventing misuse while protecting genuine victims. It also clarifies that marital disputes belong in family courts, not workplace tribunals.

What is the significance of the “clean hands” principle?

The “clean hands” principle means that a person seeking relief from a court must not have engaged in wrongful conduct themselves. Dr. Khan’s retaliatory dismissal of his subordinate violated this principle, leading to the upheld dismissal.

This decision is a victory for justice and Islamic values, ensuring that the law is applied fairly while protecting the dignity of all parties involved. The nation stands united in its commitment to truth, faith, and the rule of law.