A federal ombudsperson has upheld her earlier order to suspend services of a senior official of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) – accused of harassing his former female colleague.
Federal Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace Kashmala Tariq on Friday heard the version of the official, Pemra Director General HR and Administration Haji Adam, who had requested the ombudsperson to review her February 4 order to suspend his services.
Tariq later upheld her order, maintaining that a departmental inquiry into the alleged harassment is under way and in order to ensure impartiality of the proceedings, the official must remain suspended.
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on August 10 directed the ombudsman to “give proper hearing” to both parties and to pass a “speaking order” in 15 days. The IHC had issued an 8-page order on a petition filed by Haji Adam against his ‘illegal” suspension from service on complaint of another Pemra official.
The ombudsperson on February 4 suspended service of Adam to prevent him from influencing the ongoing departmental inquiry while hearing a complaint filed against him by a former Pemra employee, Sidra Karim Awan.
Pemra had later moved the President Secretariat against the ombudsman’s decision on its own but the secretariat on June 30 refused to undo the suspension order. Pemra chairman on July 3 also maintained the suspension order. Adam had moved the IHC against all these orders.
He had contended that Sidra registered the complaint with the ombudsperson while a 7-member Pemra committee was still investigating her complaint against him on departmental basis.
Haji Adam also contended that the federal ombudsman on February 4 passed the order in his absence as he was out of the country when the hearing took place.
The IHC, however, had disposed of his petition while maintaining the orders for his suspension. It had asked the ombudsperson to “give proper hearing” to both parties and to pass a “speaking order”.
The court had noted that while the petitioner contended that the ombudsperson’s decision had no legal worth, he had filed a request with her for a review of the ombudsman's February 4 order.
“[This] makes the instant constitutional [petition] not maintainable as the alternate remedy has been availed; although the petitioner has taken the stance that he has filed an application for withdrawal of the pending review petition.
“While considering all these legal and factual aspects, there is no cavil to the proposition that the federal ombudsman can only pass the order provided under the law, ie, Section 10 of the Act 2010 which deals with the powers of the ombudsman,” the order read.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ