JUSTICE (RETD.) SHAHNA WAZ TARIQ , OMBUDSMAN .---Through captioned appeal under section 6(1) of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, appellant Fahad Faruqui has assailed the decision dated 25.01.2017, passed by the Inquiry Committee, whereby his services were terminated from SZABIST and prayed to set-aside the impugned order and restore his services as Assistant Professor .
2. Necessary facts spelt out from instant appeal are that appellant was appointed as Assistant Professor by respondent No,1 SZABIST , an educational institute being headed by its president, whereas respondent No,2 Ms. Seahra Asghar is a student and doing her bachelors in Media Sciences and is also TV actress and remained student of appellant till 2015. She filed complaint against the appellant through email to Ms. Shehla Sidiki of SZABIST , and reported incidents of harassment, therefore, respondent No,1 constituted Inquiry Committee consisting of Ms. Shehla Sidiki as Chairperson, Ms. Shaista Sarki, Mr. Khalid Hameed and Mr. Bilal Zubedi as its members. The Inquiry Committee conducted proceedings and found appellant guilty for causing sexual harassment, and ultimately he was dismissed from his service.
3. Learned counsel for appellant, at the very outset, has contended that neither complainant can file complaint for sexual harassment against the appellant nor respondent No,1 can constitute the Inquiry Committee for conducting inquiry proceedings, as SZABIST is not workplace of the complainant being a student, but only appellant was employed there, thus provisions of the Act, 2010, have been wrongly invoked and appellant was illegally dismissed from his service; that record of minutes of meetings placed by the Inquiry Committee reveals that there are clear contradictions regarding filing of complaint through email and initiation of inquiry proceedings, as complaint was sent through email on 25.11.16, while inquiry was already initiated on 24.11.16, but copy of complaint was received by the appellant on 22.12.16, which reflects the partial and biased attitude of the Inquiry Committee, and is also clear violation of the procedure prescribed for conducting inquiry . Learned counsel further submitted that complainant believed that she deserved for A-grade but appellant marked her B-grade, therefore, she has filed a false complaint with ulterior motives; that during the inquiry enormous pressure was exerted on appellant by the Chairperson and head of department to resign from service upon completion of the ongoing semester , but he remained adamant to resign on a false complaint; that Chairperson had expresse d her mind to dismiss him from service so she was not inclined to entertain the evidence which he wished to produce and one sided inquiry was conducted because Chairperson had a longstanding grudge against the appellant for not giving full marks to her son being his student; that respondent No,1 had evaded the appellant and promoted Shariq Chhapra, a junior as head of department, against which he raised protest and since then the attitude of the management had changed; that complainant has referred four incidents of causing sexual harassment but all allegations remained unsubstantiated, as no evidence was recorded by the Committee to corroborate alleged events; that no allegation for unwelcome sexual advance nor request for sexual favors was attributed to him; that the Committee with ulterior motives had recommended major penalty for appellant and no action was initiated by respondent No,1 upon emails sent by the appellant against Chairperson; that witness Natalia and other students were not examined in presence of appellant nor he was afforded chance to cross examine them, therefore, impugned dismissal order may be set- side. However , learned counsel has candidly admitted that neither any application was filed by the appellant before the Inquiry Committee to call any witness for recording evidence and conduct ing cross examination nor any statement was filed showing his no confidence upon the Inquiry Committee.
4. While refuting the above submissions, learned counsel for respondent No,1 has vehemently contended that appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable, as no illegality has been shown in appeal; that complainant sent her initial complaint through email on 21.11.16 to the Chairperson and after their meeting, the Chairperson had guided her to file a proper complaint against the accused, therefore, no ulterior motive can be alleged against her; that Inquiry Committee has conducted its proceedings transparently , while appellant and complainant had participated personally and were heard by the Committee at length and they were allowed questioning each other but appellant could not negate the allegations levelled by the complainant; that at the event of ZMF (SZABIST Media Festival), appellant in presence of others had caused sexual harassment to her upon which she had shouted upon him to stop harassing her but he instead of mending his ways, had issued threats that he would ruin her life; that under the Act, 2010, no specific procedure for conducting inquiry has been prescribed and it is left upon the Inquiry Committee to adopt the procedure as per its convenience: that SZABIST being an educational institution is covered by the definition of organization which is workplace of the appellant, while complainant is a regular student and there is no restriction that aggrieved person must be employed in same organization, therefore, appellant could not save his skin from the proceedings initiated under the Act, 2010: that appella nt had filed Civil Suit No,617 of 2017 for Malicious Prosecution, Defamation, General and Special Damages against the respondents before the Court of XIth Senior Civil Judge. South Karachi which was dismissed vide order 24.05.2018, hence he already availed the proper remedy; that no legal ground has been urged for calling any interference with the impugned decision and appeal deserves for dismissal.
5. Complainant Searha Asghar has vehemently contended that accused had attended all proceedings and in final session he did not ask any question from her, while she asked questions from him but he could not properly reply and gave evasive answers; that accused being a teaching faculty had no right to offer her his friendship being a student and on her refusal, he had repeatedly maligned her character in front of other students; that she apprehending her future had initially tolerated his hostile attitude and derogatory remarks but when appellant crossed the limits then she informed her family upon which appellant issued threats that he will ruin her life and by using his influence, he will get removed his brother from his service; that father of the appellant made call to her brother at her home that he wants to talk to her mother to resolve the issue amicably and matter should not be reported to SZABIST ; that if appellant was not guilty why his father begged for settlement privately and not to take any legal action against appellant. Lastly , she prayed for justice.
6. Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned counsel for respondent No,1, complainant in person and scanned the available record prudently . Both learned counsel while addressing on the issue of harassment, have also actively argued on the point of Master and Servant supported with relevant case law, nevertheless, this form would refrain from commenting on subsequent point which is beyond the domain of this forum and it might affect the legal rights of either party .
7. At the first instance, it would be advantageous to examine the concluding findings and recommendations of the Inquiry Committee which are reproduced as follows:- "Findings and Recommendations:- The committee concludes from investigating the matter that Searha and Mr. Fahad Farooqui were good friends which Mr. Fahad Farooqui has taken to be of a personal nature. His overpowering nature had have scared Searha which made her disconnect with him. This rejection was unacceptable by Mr. Fahad Farooqui which led to a series of abuses hurled at her. The final straw that convinced Searha to come forward with this was at the event of the ZAB Media Festival where she was witnessed to be screaming at him asking him to stop harassing her when she was threatened that he would ruin her life. This was verified by Mr. Fahad Alvi, student of Media Sciences who was called before the committee since Mr. Farooqui had referred to him on two occasion s in his written statement. From the numerous hours spent in trying to solve this matter his statements digress away from the topic at hand and are many a time irrelevant and incoherent. He had quoted Sufism and religion when questioned about matters he has no answers to. He showed that he got anxious most of the times and got agitated at small things. From the proceedings it is clear Mr. Farooqui assumes thing according to his perceptions and had misinterpreted his relationship with Searha. He had further exerted paranoia of sorts regarding the fact that everyone including his colleagues in his department, the anti-ha rassment committee, SZABIST management and the students want to malign his name. He is frequently observed to have a defensive attitude in response to imagined criticism and preoccupation with hidden movies by being deceived or taken advantage of. It is recommended by the committee that after having investigated this matter thoroughly , Mr. Fahad Farooqui could not present any evidence pertaining to the recordings or rumors/ calumniation claimed to be put up against him by the complainant. It also became very clear that at the end of the inquiry session that Mr. Farooqui was paying heed to here say. Therefore, he has been found guilty and is to be given a major penalty as recommended by session 4, clause 4 (ii) (d) of the statute. His personality as also identified during the course of this investigation can be damaging and hurtful to the students he teaches."
8. It would be appropriate to have a glance over the main allegations levelled by the complainant and the remarks uttered by the appellant, thus the relevant portions of the complaint are reproduced as follows:- ..............In last semester , sir was sitting with a bunch of juniors at 100 campus, I was passing by so in-greeted him with salam, he walked towards me and said "tum apne boyfriend ko sir bulati ho? main kub se tumahara sir ban gaya. Tum to itni ghatya aurat ho maine tumhara family background check karwaya hai. I know what kind of people you are. You have made me upset. I hate your face. I don't even like to see your face.
You are talking about me. You said to few students that I gave emma stone walk to Fahad Faruqui."
"Journalism ki class main you see to stand like "main koi achoot hun". I mean you have felt my dick. We have done everything. You know what your class mates think of you. Do you know what your Salman talks about you. I think you should know . He calls you "tattay chatney wali randi" .
After my documentary's class, I was waiting for my friend Marium Desai at the corridor of media faculty room. He entered the passage and saw me, I said salam and he came up to me and said "tum Bohat Ghatya Aurat ho tumhari Zaban Gattar jaisi hai tumhari Maa aik naik aurat hai per tumhara Brought up Sarak per hua hai.
Men itna upset tha. I was in England past few months and when I came back, you are again talking shit about me. My reputation is very good and you are ruining it and it's worth ruining for a girl like you. Jahan tum Beth kr hansti ho na, that's all fake. You are sad person. " He looked at me from top to bottom and said "tum to bus theek ho, I mean mere paas Larkiyon ki kami nahi hai. Tum us din Faiz ke saath jarahi thin and you were wearing this same lipstick. By the way it looks nice on you."
He said: "Do you know who I am. I am a journa list, main aik article likhon ga our tumhara career tabah hojaey ga. Main tumhare bhai ko naukri se nikalwa dunga. Do you know what people call you in staff room.
They call you my mistress. You used Salman. You used Faiz. You used Agha Fawad and you used me. You know we both are forgiving and we can let go of things. I mean you are nice person per tum Bhatak gai ho.
I was just scaring you because you were laughing at my face."
On 8th Nov after documentary's class my friend Natalia and I were sitting. Our class mates sitting outside of media lab, told that sir Fahad is taking journalism 's extra class. I told my friend that I'm not going, you go. So she opened the door but could not notice sir in class as he is short heighted and she called me from there "Searha ajao sir class min nahi hen" but he was there. So I walked away . In lab when Natalia was coming down, he said "tell your friend that my ego is hurt and come and give me hug. " She came down and we were sitting at 100 campus, where he came to us and "started touching me saying Ao na, Ao na, Aaa na. Tum Itni hoor nahi ho. How dare you say men ego hurt hui hai. Har larkay k lund pe charhti ho. 5 men are telling me that you are talking about me to them. Natalia tell your friend she is not that beautiful. Asman say nahi aaey hai. He points at me. I'll break your face in front of your mother ." Natalia said sir relax please relax its nothing like this. He said "you are defending your friend. She is asteen ka Saanp. Even if you become Mahira Khan, I still don't desire you." He turns to Natalia and said "you know whom names did I give for hosting ZMF" (SZABIST Media Festival)."
She asked who? He said "you and this bitch. T umharay har jaga thoku hain sudhar jao " and he left.
ZMF was on 19th Nov, I was avoiding sir since the start of the event. After the award ceremony , he came to me and said "You are a desperate woman and sad person." I said excuse the what. He said "just now you said to Aliya dekho wo agaya. You are desperate. " I said excuse me what and then 1 walked away . He followed me and said "I'll come to your house." I screamed come to my house. He said "I'll ruin your life." I screamed ruin my life. He said "how dare you misbehave with me." I shouted Bkx you did it too. Thereafter I was on call with my brother . he went to my friend and asked whom is she calling and said "Tum kya bolaogi, main bolunga." I called my parents there and they had word with sir Chhapra. After the party , he came again to dance and told the students that "we are dating and I misbehaved with him." Next day his father called at my home numb er and started begging my brother to resolve the matter and not let it out. He said that "Bacha hai wo." My brother said how you can compare 40 years old guy with 20 years old girl. His father said 'for parents he is still a kid, uski aisi halat hai jaise uski Toffee chhin gai ho and now he wants it back". My brother said "ap hamari izzat ko toffee se compare kr rahe hin." You think they were dating? His father said nahi nahi beta aisa nahi hai. My brother said he will kick me out of my job? His father said nahi nahi beta aisa kuch nahi hota aap hamare ghar aaen ya hum aapke ghr akar problem solve karlete hen. Once in campus sir said that "he gave me something. I kissed on his cheek and Natalia along with Marium said "aawww cute" what a nice couple."
9. In written defence filed before the Inquiry Committee, appellant took stance that complaint was sent on 25th Nov but he received its copy on 22nd December that Sufis believe that when someone unjustly points a finger at someone, She/he levies three times more allegations on themselves such is nature of the universe and the divine decree. Allegations made in complaint are fictitious. malicious and defamatory; that before responding to the allegations, he would like to address the nature of their relationship that has come up repeatedly in their conversations; Complainant was his student and a dear friend . She would drop in occasionally and was treated as honored guest and he views that as a dignified relationship which they all cheris hed. regardless of what came of it. He refuted the complaint, as it was made with the delay of seven and half months by using the gutter language, and she is talking ill against him, ciphering innuendos about a dignified interaction that he always had, " giving other students an impression that there's something going on between them; that he has been avoiding her for over a year, to the degree that he would greet her friend Natalia through gestures only so that he could avoid her; that she sent a msg to apologize for hurting him and despite the gutter language, there was no sign of feeling harassed, and he responded her that "he did not hate her" as a human being but he hates certain instances of immorally all of which he had verified thoroughly . It will spiritually beneficial for both of them to move on Inshallah without any resentment, thus he apologized her." Hence, there are two possibilities here either what he said to her was complete truth or she is immune to gutter language either way it points a finger at her, not him; that if any legal body deals with complaint after 178 days, then courts will be overwhelmed with back dated complaints of employees or students, while legally the young lady is standing on thin ice; that in his meeting with Shariq Chhapra, on 6th Dec, his paramount concern was that she was talking to everyone and now the splatter of her filthy talk is falling on other teachers. On 19th Nov. complainant and he didn't exchange greetings and he maintained a distance, except confronting her on her wrongdoings. She maligned him by saying "look how loud he is" ciphering that it is to grab her highness's attention. She moved one chair space sitting besides Fahad Alvi, who is a witness and asked her "you should not talk about a faculty member like this." A student approached her and asked "why are you sitting here?" and she gestured moving her body towards him, and he was helpless again . She then sat right behind him in we first row behind the sofa where he was sitting. She laughed loudly at a mistake he made. "He went up to her after the event formally closed and said that what she is doing, is wrong and frustrating." She curtly replied "what are you talking about?" looking down at him and then went ballistic. He is not saying that she is all bad, as there is some goodness in her but she spreads rumors of grievous nature, making moral indictments with serious consequences. She passed a pesky remark that she did not take appellant's course as he would be biased towards her, "but in all fairness, she had never demanded a better grade."
10. While adjudging the objection regard ing the non-applicability of the provisions of the Act, 2010, on the score that complainant is a student and not employee of the SZABIST ; it would be beneficial to examine the term organization as defined in section 2(1) of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, which is reproduced as follows:- "Organization" means a Federal or Provi ncial Government Ministry , Division or department, a corporation or any autonomous or semi-autonomous body , Educational Institute, Medical facilities established or controlled by the Federal or Provincial Government or District Government or registered civil society associations or privately managed a commercial or an industrial establishment or institution, a company as defined in the Companies Ordinance, 1984 (XL VII of 1984) and includes any other registered private sector organization or institution." Likewise, per section 2(n) of the Act, 2010, workplace means the place of work or the premises where an organization or employer operates and includes building, factory , open area or a larger geographical area where the activities of the organization or of employer are carried out and including any untoward incident or situation occurred which is linked to of ficial work or of ficial activity outside the of fice.
11. Indeed, complainant being a student has been paying fee as charges of study to the University and in lieu of said payment, University has been provid ing the services of teaching factuality as an expert to teach the student, and simultaneously , student is also doing an intellectual and academic work in institution, therefore, there is an indirect contract of employment between the student and a teacher through the institution, as the entire affairs of the student and teacher are being managed and controlled by the institution under certain rules and regulations.
The wisdom from the definition of Organization referred supra manifests that all educational institutions either controlled by the Federal Government, Provincial Government, District Government, Autonomous bodies, Semi- autonomous bodies or functioning in private capacity are entirely covered under the domain of organization as envisaged under section 2(l) of the Act, 2010, therefore, provisions of the Act, 2010, are fully applicable upon all the educational institutions. Similarly , workpla ce covers all kinds of educational institutions being the place of study and doing the practical by the student, hence, it is not essential that student must be directly employed in said educational institution where the offence of sexual harassment has been commit ted, thus, cases of the students studying in educational institution are fully covered under the canvass and definition of workplace. Even otherwise, in view of the norms of natural justice, workplace of either party is sufficient to invoke the provisions of the Act, 2010, and the wrongdoer A could not be left unchecked nor he can take benefit of his illegal acts merely on the basis of legal technicalities, therefore, any student or employee or officer of the educational institution can file complaint for causing sexual harassment and the management is legally competent to constitute the inquiry committee to conduct the proceedings against the accused to thrash-out the truth, as envisaged under the Act, 2010. Consequently , SZABIST is an organization and any aggrieved student, employee or officer can file complaint for sexual harassment and the managem ent is legally empowered and bound to constitute the inquiry committee under the Act, 2010.
12. While considering the point for not recording the evidence of the parties on oath, nor providing the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses; it is significant to refer that section 4(2) of the Act, 2010, emphasis that the Inquiry Committee shall have ample powers to regulate its own procedure for conducting inquiry proceedings to achieve the subject task including the fixing of place and time for its sitting, nonetheless, no prescribed procedure or mechanism has been provided in the Act, 2010, for conducting the proceedings of the complaint. The inquiry proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Committee or appeal filed before the Ombudsman under the Act, 2010, are quasi-judicial in nature, thus procedure and provisions prescribed under the general laws could not be strictly applied thereupon, however , maintenance of transparency and impartiality in order to ensure dispensation of justice is essential. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Committee could not be challenged and objected by the either party as a matter of routine or with sole object to frustrate the very purpose of inquiry proceedings or apprehending any adverse conclusion, if said party has been heard properly and was afforded opportunity to explain its position and produce relevant material in accordance with law. Admitt edly, no written application was moved by the appellant to the Inquiry Committee for adducing any kind of evidence or calling any witness for cross, examination, and even no statement was filed before the Inquiry Committee showing loss of trust upon the proceedings till holding the final session on 30.12.16. However , per final report furnished by the Inquiry Committee, appellant communicated his three concerns regarding the impartiality of the committee; first, appellant stated that the committee could fabricate whatever went on during the meetings, second, appellant claimed that he was asked to resign from his job by four different persons, and the members of committee had prompted that action; third, appellant claimed that a student had signed statement that appellant would be dismissed. Conversely , the Inquiry Committee while addressing appellant's concerns, had provided him the option of his case being heard by a different committee, but appellant responded to the committee's suggestions by recanting his earlier statements and candidly reaffirmed his faith upon the Inquiry Committee. Therefore, at appellate stage, appellant neither can take the divergent stance that he was not provided adequate opportunity to defend his case nor controvert the transparency of the proceedings. Moreover , Inquiry Committee while exercising its powers for conducting the inquiry proceedings under section 4(2) of the Act, 2010, is an independent and competent authority for commencement of its proceedings, therefore, the management has no legal authority to dictate or influence the Inquiry Committee to do or not to do any act as per their wish.
13. So far the contention raised by the appellant that complainant believed that she deserved for A-grade but he marked her B-grade. so she has persistent grudge against him and has filed a false complaint only to defame him, is self-contradictory to the averments of his written defence filed by him that "he is not saying that she is all bad, as there is some goodness in her. She passed a pesky remark that she did not take appellant's course as she had a feeling that he would be biased towards her, but in all fairness, she had never demanded a better grade ."
Therefore, the stance taken by the appellant for filing of the false complaint on the account of not giving her A- grade could not be believed.
14. While dealing with the contention that complaint was moved on 25.11.16, but proceedings were already initiated on 24.11.16. and its copy was supplied to appellant on 22.12.16; it is worthwhile to mention that initially complainant sent her complaint through email to Chairperson on 21.11.16, regarding causing of sexual harassment by the appellant and requested to give her time for apprising the incidents of harassment which was a natural demeanor and being a student she had adopted a right path, as it was not an easy job to implicate a teaching factuality in such complaint by taking a serious risk for her career , future and reputation. She has narrated in first complaint "that out of distress, she would like to present her grievances pertaining to Mr. Fahad Faruqui. She is very sorrowful to report that in the University Mr. Faruqui has been harassing, threatening and has also been spreading false rumors related to herself. Therefore. she will be grateful if you would arrange a meeting so that she can discuss the matter with you in detail. " In response, the Chairperson convened a meeting with complainant on 24.11.16 and after hearing the facts, she guided the complainant to file a proper complaint to investigate the allegations which was a legal process and complainant being a layperson was unaware about the legal procedure for filing of the complaint, therefore, said guidance was in accordance with law and such act could not be termed as illegal or result of malafide intention.
15. Perusal of record reflects that appellant was not only visiting the SZABIST University and taking his classes regularly but also was holding his meetings with different officials including Mr. Chhapra on 6th Dec on the issue of subject complaint. Even he had particip ated in inquiry proceedings on 25.11.16 and then continued till final proceedings held on 30.12.16. Undeniably , appellant never moved any application nor raised objection before the Inquiry Committee regarding commencement of inquiry proceedings without supplying him copy of the complaint.
Even otherwise, the subject issue had become talk of the town and entire SZABIST including the staff members and students were fully aware of the incident and commencement of inquiry proceedings. Thus. the contradictory demeanor of appellant has established that he was well aware of the lodgment of the complaint and its proceedings but he has falsely taken stance of non-supply of copy mere on the legal technicalities with sole object to frustrate the inquiry proceedings, and even otherwise such plea is not convincing the prudent mind that without having details of allegations or copy of the complaint. how he was attending the proceedings regularly and also filed his three statements on dif ferent dates before the Inquiry Committee.
16. Considering the explicit circumstances of instant complaint, there is no legal embargo if initial complaint was made verbally or mere intimation for the act of harassment was transmitted through email by the complainant being aggrieved person to the competent authority regarding causing of harassment and subsequently , written complaint was moved in detail for commencement of legal action against the accused. Moreover , the act of causing harassment is an offence which is punishable under the law. However , there is no such bar nor any specific period of limitation is envisaged in the Act, 2010 , for filing of harassment complaint against the accused. Furthermore, no complaint of harassment can be discorde d or disbelieved on the account of limitation nor any offender can claim his innocence for not filing the complaint instantly after its occurrence or has been filed with inordinate delay , therefore, the delay of 178 days in the lodgment of instant harassment complaint would not be fatal to its merits, when same is based on valid and strong grounds. It is well settled proposition of law that a person can tell a lie but the circumstances cannot, therefore, I have no hesitation to conclude that appellant was well aware of the lodgment of the complaint and having complete knowledge of the set of allegations as levelled therein but he has deliberately and malafidely made misstatement before this forum by concealing the truth on the lame excuses.
17. It is significant to mention that the transcript of recording of inquiry proceedings consisting of 169 pages, was filed along with final report by the couns el for the SZABIST , which is containing the questions and answers of appellant Fahad Faruqui, complainant Searha, Inquiry Committee and student witnesses namely Salman and Rafy Israr. On pages Nos,136 and 137 of the said transcript, student Salman has deposed that during dance in party at the house of student Natalia, appellant took the complainant in his gowed, while appellant admitted that he took the complainant in his hands and not in his gowed.
18. There are moral values and ethical boundaries amongst the teaching faculty and female student relationship which commands respect and honour and there is no room for maintaining their relationship as good friends. A teacher can be friendly to his/her student but they can never be friends. There exists a relationship of trust between a teacher and the parents of a student which operates as a bar, which continues even if the student or the parents of that student accord their consent. This trust acts as a core foundation of our 'society which allow the parents to handover their children into the protective care of a teacher . Any kind of compromise on this trust will have a far reaching and dire consequences. The burden of this trust exclusively lies upon the teacher of any gender , and the student regardless of his gender will be presumed to be weak and potential victim. Any form of friendship between a teacher and a student cannot exist beca use the bureaucratic structure of a classroom will collapse as the teacher is the head of the class and in a position to pass final verdict with respect to the performance of a student, and any kind of friendship between a teacher and student will naturally be biased which is against the interest of the rest of the class. Furthermore, besides teacher's authority over student and the obligation of being impartial, a friendship might interfere with the studies and learning of that student. Moreover , consent of a student does not mean that teacher should cross the teacher and student relationship boundaries and in case of any complaint for sexual harassment by a student, the burden should lie upon the teacher to clarify his position to refute and, nullify the allegations levelled against him, as he is in dominating, commanding and authoritative position. The safety of students and the fiduciary relationship of the teacher towards his students are sacrosanct and cannot be allowed to be abused, and any insignificant act of harassment ruins the decorum and dignity of the said relationship, thus any such mala fide attempt or expressing the purposeful derogatory remarks to insult or cast slur on the character of any student in her/his presence or absence or in presence of other students clearly falls within the ambit of the Act, 2010.
19. While adverting to the merits of instant appeal, appellant's overall demeanou r remained beyond the trusted limits of teacher and student relationships and he never maintained the respectful status and decorum of such relationship which could not be ignored as a matter of routine. Furthermore, appellant's personal interaction with a girl student out of a class room is precluded, particularly dancing of a teacher with a girl student and taking her in gowed/lap, has tarnished the dignity and self-esteem of teacher and student relationship. Even otherwise, no one could imagine or expect such callous and vulgar language repeatedly used by the appellant being teaching faculty against the student which reflects the mindset and caliber of the appellant.
20. As the sequel of the facts and circumstances culminated supra, I am of the considered view that appellant has undoubtedly caused sexual harassment to the complainant and Inquiry Committee has rightly held him responsible for the subject acts. However , considering the sensitivity of the act of sexual harassment committed by the appellant, the Inquiry Committee has taken very lenient view which is not in acco rdance with the spirit of the Act, 2010, therefore, under section 6(3) of the Act, 2010, the impugned decision is modified and in addition to penalty imposed by the Inquiry Committee, appel lant is further penalized and directed to pay Rs,50,000/- (fifty thousands) as compensation to the complainant Ms. Searha Asghar within 30 days from passing of this decision through the office of this forum without fail. In case of appellant failed to pay the compensation amount within the span of the above period, same shall be recovered through the concerned Deputy Commissioner under the Land Revenue Act.
Consequently , with the above modifications, instant appeal stands dismissed being devoid of any legal substance.