Dr. Khurshid Jabal, J.
1. The petitioner was serving as an Assistant Professor (BPS-19) in the Department of Business Administration of the Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan ("the University"). On 15.05.2017, Ms. Arisha Mahrukh, a student of Master of Business Administration (MBA), ("the complainant") filed a complaint before the Vice-Chancellor of the University, alleging that the petitioner has been blackmailing students for the sake of marks and persuading them to develop sexual relationship with him on such pretexts. Along with the complaint, she annexed prints of certain screenshots of the messages which the petitioner had sent to the complainant via WhatsApp. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the Vice-Chancellor constituted an Inquiry Committee to probe the matter under section 7 of the Gomal University Employees Efficiency and Discipline Statutes, 2016 ("the Statutes") vide an office order, dated 17.05.2017. He did so in anticipation of approval of the Syndicate which is the Authorized Officer/Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an employee under the Statutes.
2. The Inquiry Committee, under section 8 of the Statutes, framed charge against the petitioner and communicated it together with the statement of allegations, requiring him to submit reply and appear in person before it on 26.05.2017. After examining the complainant and the petitioner and considering the material placed before it, the Committee found the petitioner guilty and, as such, it submitted its Report on 06.06.2017, to the Vice-Chancellor, within a month, as required under section clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Statutes. We shall further discuss the examination of both the complainant and the petitioner by the Committee later in this opinion. The Inquiry Report was placed before the Syndicate in its 98th meeting held on 23-24.04.2019, which imposed upon the petitioner a major penalty of dismissal from service, as contained in section 6(1)
(b)(iv) of the Statutes. Pursuant to the Syndicate's decision, the dismissal order was passed on 25.04.2019. The petitioner, then, questioned the proceedings before this Court by filing a Writ Petition # 482-13/2019. He also preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority/Chancellor of the University on 17.05.2019, for his reinstatement. It is worth noting that no show cause notice was served upon the petitioner before he was dismissed from service, therefore, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in the aforementioned writ petition, the Appellate Authority, by its order dated 29.01.2020, directed the Authorized Officer to serve the petitioner with a show cause notice and also provide him an opportunity of hearing.
3. In the second round, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 02.03.2020. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 06.03.2020. He was also heard in person by the Authorized Officer. His reply to the show cause notice and personal hearing were not found satisfactory by the Authorized Officer. Hence, in its meeting held 08.07.2020, the Authorized Officer unanimously endorsed the decision of his dismissal from service. He was, thus, dismissed from service vide order dated 21.07.2020. Being aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the aforesaid order before the Appellate Authority / Chancellor of the University, but remained unsuccessful vide order dated 11.10.2021. Hence, this petition.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Vice-Chancellor was not Authorized Officer under the Statutes to initiate the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner, inasmuch as it was the Syndicate to do so. It was next submitted that the Inquiry Committee did not provide the petitioner an opportunity of cross-examination while recording the statement of the complainant and, therefore, not only the mandatory provisions contained in sub-clause (1) of sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Statutes were violated, but also the universally acknowledged principle of natural justice. It was further submitted that the WhatsApp messages were not properly authenticated and presented in accordance with the legal and technical standards. The learned counsel went on arguing that the entire proceedings conducted against the petitioner are against the Statutes and, therefore, cannot sustain the major penalty of dismissal from service.
6. Contrarily, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Vice-Chancellor was authorized by the Syndicate in its 96th meeting to initiate disciplinary proceedings in such matters against the employees of the University in BPS-17, and above. Referring to the order dated 17.05.2017, it was submitted that the Inquiry Committee was constituted in anticipation of approval of the Syndicate which was duly accorded. It was further submitted that the petitioner has fairly admitted the allegations before the Inquiry Committee and, therefore, the mere non-provision of an opportunity of cross-examination would make no difference. It was further submitted that when the guilt was admitted, then, the non-authentication of the WhatsApp messages through the modern techniques becomes insignificant. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel submitted that the entire proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and the petitioner, having been found guilty on the charge, has rightly been dismissed from service.
7. In light of arguments addressed at the bar and careful perusal of record, we find that though under the Statutes, the Syndicate is the Authorized Officer / Authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against an employee of BPS-I9. However, perusal of office order of 17.05.2017 clearly depicts that the Inquiry Committee was constituted by the Vice-Chancellor in anticipation of approval of the Syndicate. The Syndicate, in its 96th meeting, duly approved the proceedings against the petitioner. Moreover, it also delegated its power to the Vice-Chancellor as Authorized Officer for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against employees of BPS-17 and above.
Furthermore, in pursuance of the Minutes of 96th and 97th meetings of the Syndicate, the case of the petitioner was considered in 98th meeting on 23-24.04.2019. The matter does not end here.
After the appeal of the petitioner was considered by the Appellate Authority on 29.01.2020, the material, with reference to the allegations leveled, was considered by the Authorized Officer, in light of which it issued him a show cause notice dated 02.03.2020. It is worth noting that the process of inquiry as mentioned in section 7(1) and (2) is not necessary in all cases. Rather, the Authorized Officer under sub-section (3) of section 7 of the Statutes may proceed against an employee if it has formed an opinion on the basis of material placed before it that an inquiry is not necessary. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the initiation of proceedings becomes justified from every angle and there appears no reason to hold that the proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction.
8. As regards the submission that the petitioner was provided no opportunity of cross-examination, it is on the record that the petitioner admitted the WhatsApp chat with the complainant on the eventful evening. During the first inquiry, the complainant appeared during the proceedings. When examined by the Committee, she fully owned the complainant being true and genuine. When asked why did she share her cell phone number, she stated that in the first semester, the petitioner appointed her as Representative of the Girls' class and assigned her the responsibility of marking attendance of the students in the class. She produced a copy of the WhatsApp chat. The Committee also examined the petitioner. It read the first charge, the subject of the instant petition, before him to which he replied. For quick reference, the charge and the reply are reproduced as under: The charge (1): That you Mr. Tafakher, Assistant Professor, have been found involved in communicating unethical WhatsApp to Ms. Arisha Mahrukh, a student of MBA. * The reply: I have been doing this only to identify who she is, later on when I came to know that she was one of my students, I apologized from her husband and her.
He, however, denied other charges pertaining to (2), harassing female students, (3) blackmailing students for sexual relationship and money, and (4) his act of harassment being unbecoming of a gentle man especially of a teacher.
9. In the second round, he was again served with a show cause notice dated 02.03.2020. He was also afforded an opportunity of personal hearing vide a letter dated 03.07.2020 before the Syndicate in its meeting scheduled for 08.07.2020 at 10.00 am. The Syndicate's discussion on the matter and decision after personal hearing are as follows: Discussion: The Registrar briefed the House about Sexual Harassment case of Mr. Tafakhar Hasnain. The case was thoroughly scrutinized by the members. In his defense Mr. Tafakhar denied all allegations against him by saying that he has a good academic record and remained best teacher of the department for three years. He alleged that the complainant appeared to him in his office to get a favor of 85% marks in her subject. The Vice Chancellor inquired that whether she also approached to any other teacher for marks? Why did she approach only to you for such favor? The Vice Chancellor also asked when she approached you, whether she was alone or with friends? He replied I don't remember. Once member asked that why he has accepted the sexual harassment in writing? He responded that the husband of the girl did pressurize him to do so. Mr. Tafakhar Hasnain responded with hesitation and contradictory statements and failed to clarify his position before the House.
Decision: As directed by the Appellate Authority/Chancellor Gomal University, Mr. Tafakhar Hasnain was given opportunity of Personal Hearing in which he failed to clarify his position before the house.
Hence, the house unanimously endorsed the decision of his Dismissal from Service.
Lastly, during the arguments both the learned counsels for the parties stated that complainant was killed in 2017. So, her cross examination was out of question during the second round of the inquiry.
10. The record shows that the petitioner has very fairly conceded his guilt before the Inquiry Committee. Hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the principle of cross examination is somewhat different than in cases where the guilt is contested. Moreover, the stance of the petitioner with regard to the denial of the contents of the complaint remained quite contradictory. Firstly, he conceded that the messages were sent to the complainant given that he was trying to identify the user at the other end. Secondly, he stated that the complainant filed the complaint against him for the reason that she was compelling him to award her excellent marks.
Though, the petitioner has now resiled from the earlier statement, contending that he made it because of pressure put on him by the husband of the complainant. However, it is not appealing to a prudent mind either. The reason is two-fold. Firstly, when he had not sent the messages to the complainant, then, how and why her husband came to pressurize the petitioner. Secondly, if in fact, he was pressurized despite being innocent, then, why he did not lodge a complaint against him before the relevant authorities at the appropriate time. Besides, it is beyond comprehension that the petitioner was the only Professor in the University the complainant was compelling for the marks. Additionally, a teacher, as a spiritual father, plays a significant and influential role in a student's life similar to the way a father would be expected to guide and support his child. Teachers are often seen as figures of authority and guidance, helping students in navigating not only their academic pursuits, but also offering them mentorship and lessons for a successful life. Hence, teachers have much greater responsibilities in shaping character of and imbibing high moral values in their students; besides helping them chart a roadmap for their bright educational career.
Indeed, they should be a great source of inspiration for their students. They are highly expected to act in a demonstrably responsible manner. In the face of such compelling circumstances, the manner in which the petitioner chatted with the complainant is highly deplorable and it brings bad name to the educational institutions of the country.
11. For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the proceedings were competently initiated against the petitioner as per the Statutes. When he has himself admitted his guilt before the Inquiry Committee, then, of course, there remained no need either to provide him the right to cross- examine the complainant or to authenticate the WhatsApp messages as per the legal standards.
In the circumstances, we hold that the petitioner has been rightly awarded the major penalty. But on balance, we believe that the penalty awarded is the harshest, having both moral and financial implications for him and his family. We are mindful of the fact that: firstly, the petitioner would be careful in future. Secondly, he has a right to earn livelihood for himself and his family which would remain seriously jeopardized in the event of dismissal from service, keeping him deprived of getting further employment. Hence, we convert the penalty to removal from service under section 6(1)(b)(iii) of the Statutes. With these observations, this petition is dismissed.