The Supreme Court has ruled that heads of educational institutions are legally bound to provide a harassment-free working environment for female teachers and must take immediate and effective action on complaints of workplace harassment, warning that failure to do so may render them accountable for administrative negligence.
Female teachers’ harassment cannot be ignored, SC restores 5-year service forfeiture
ISLAMABAD, Jul 10 (APP): The Supreme Court has ruled that heads of educational institutions are legally bound to provide a harassment-free working environment for female teachers and must take immediate and effective action on complaints of workplace harassment, warning that failure to do so may render them accountable for administrative negligence.
According to the detailed judgment, a two-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali allowed the appeals filed by the Punjab government and Shazia Iqbal, setting aside the Punjab Service Tribunal’s order that had reduced the penalty of forfeiture of five years’ past service to one year. The Court restored the original departmental punishment of forfeiture of five years’ past service.
The Court observed that a departmental inquiry had established that Shazia Iqbal, Headmistress of the Government Special Education Centre in Faisalabad, failed to take effective action despite receiving complaints that a speech therapist posted at the institution had been harassing female teachers. She was found to have neglected her supervisory and administrative responsibilities.
The inquiry also found that she had unlawfully allowed the employee to reside on the institution’s premises, causing financial loss to the public exchequer.
The Supreme Court held that the departmental inquiry had been conducted in accordance with the law. Female teachers testified before the inquiry, the accused was given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, and their testimony remained unrebutted. The Court observed that extending undue leniency in such serious misconduct cases would be inconsistent with the interests of justice.
The judgment stated that educational institutions are not merely places of learning but are also obligated to provide a safe and dignified environment for female employees and all staff members. It emphasized that when the head of an institution remains silent in the face of harassment complaints, it undermines victims’ confidence and creates an unsafe educational environment.
The Court further stressed that every educational institution should have a clear anti-harassment policy, an effective complaint mechanism, impartial inquiry committees, and safeguards to protect complainants against retaliation.
Referring to the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, the International Labour Organization’s Convention No. 190, and international judicial precedents, the Supreme Court held that all institutions have a responsibility to adopt and enforce a zero-tolerance policy against workplace harassment.
