ASIM HAFEEZ, J.---Petitioner , through this constitutional petition, assails order dated 24.02.2020 by respondent No.1, whereby representation of respondent No.2, filed under section 9 of Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010 (Act, 2010), was allowed and order dated 29.11.2018 of learned Provincial Ombudsperson set aside.
2. Petitioner , serving as Junior Special Education Teacher at Government Special Education Centre, Layyah, since 25.10.2017, filed complaint under section 8 of the Act, wherein allegations of harassment were levelled against respondent No.2. Provincial Ombudsman took cognizance of the complaint; proceeded to hold inquiry and recorded evidence produced by the parties. Upon conclusion of proceedings complaint was allowed and major penalty of removal from service was awarded. Aggrieved, respondent No.2 filed representation with respondent No. 1, which was allowed by way of order of 20.05.2019 and Ombudsman order was set-aside. Petitioner filed constitutional petition bearing W.P. No. 36298 of 2019, which was allowed on 17.10.2019, impugned order therein was set-aside and matter was remanded to respondent No.1 for decision afresh. Respondent No.1 heard parties and passed order dated 24.02.2020 (impugned) and absolved respondent No.2 of the charges alleged. Hence this constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that order impugned was passed without appreciating the evidence and record, which re-determination is perverse and result of misapplication of law. Adds that charge of harassment was proved to the hilt, convincingly stablished that respondent No.2 was a habitual person - repeatedly engaged in such deviant behaviour . Learned counsel read various portions of the evidence to buttress submissions.
4. Conversely , learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 stressed that alleged charge of harassment remain unsubstantiated. Adds that mere allegations are not enough to prove charge of harassment, which is akin to a criminal charge. Learned counsel read acknowledgements on the part of petitioner to show that meeting called on Sunday also includes other participants. Learned Law Officer referred to definition of harassment and explained that none of the allegations therein, forming harassment, stood established.
5. There is no cavil that charge of harassment at workplace, in particular , involving allegation of unwelcome sexual advance and sexually demeaning attitudes entails serious consequences for the accused person, affecting person's life, career and social relationships. Equally , such a deviant behaviour violates social norms, discourages participation of womenfolk in economic activity and often leads to disastrous consequences, hence, calls for accountability and strict action. The quasi-criminal charge of sexual harassment, as a bare minimum, has to be impartial, credible, capable of surviving test of reasonableness and must be reinforced with convincing / independent evidence. Seen in the aforesaid context, petitioner failed to subs tantiate charge of harassment through independent, convincing and definite evidence. The testimony of the witnesses -- claimed as hostile - extends no support to the case of the petitioner , when their assertions otherwise do not bring home the charge of harassment. Respondent No.2 cannot be punished merely on unsubstantiated assertions. Multifariousness of the allegations, mostly manifesting grievances regarding administrative failures, compromised the credibility , seriousness and efficacy of the charges - fact evident from perusal of the complaint. No illegality is found in the order impugned, wherein respondent No.1 has thoroughly examined the record, appreciated the evidence and reached to a fair and reasoned conclusion. This complaint was filed in May 2018 and since then respondent No.2 had faced much discomfiture and social disgrace, which constitute sufficient warning and this court is sanguine that petitioner would demonstrate good and decent behaviour towards colleagues and co-workers. No ground is available to exercise constitutional jurisdiction.
6. This petition merits dismissal.