ISLAMABAD : In a ruling with far reaching implications for workplace accountability in public universities, the Federal Ombudsperson for Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace has ordered the removal from service of Health Services Academy (HSA) Vice Chancellor Prof. Dr. Shehzad Ali Khan after finding him guilty of quid pro quo sexual harassment of a former student and junior colleague.
The Ombudsperson dismissed the Vice Chancellor’s complaint against the female officer and rejected his defense of “honey trapping,” holding that consent in a teacher student power imbalance has no legal validity.
The decision was issued in Complaint No. FOH-HQR-H/0341/2025, instituted on 04-08-2025, titled Dr. Shehzad Ali Khan vs Dr. Ayesha Khan, Department: Health Services Academy, subject: Final Order
Two separate harassment complaints had been filed by both parties. Since both arose from the same factual matrix, they were consolidated for joint inquiry and adjudication
The Vice Chancellor had alleged that the respondent, initially a student in 2021 and later a contractual employee, “honey trapped” him, blackmailed him, and extracted Rs. 27.44 million under coercion for purported real estate investment. He further claimed that she threatened his family, demanded Rs. 30 million, unlawfully retained an official vehicle, and misused access to his residence. He alleged that sale proceeds of his vehicles amounting to Rs. 10 million were handed over to her cousin for property transactions. He denied any inappropriate relationship and sought protection and action against her.
The female officer, Dr. Hafiza Ayesha Khan, former Deputy Director at the Office of Research, Innovation and Commercialization (ORIC) on the other hand, alleged that the Vice Chancellor, while being her teacher and later her institutional superior, developed intimacy under a promise of marriage, made inappropriate remarks, misused authority, and retaliated against her when she resisted. She filed a separate harassment complaint, including reference to an alleged incident dated 17-07-2025 for which criminal proceedings are pending
In its detailed legal analysis, the Ombudsperson examined the principles of quid pro quo harassment and hostile work environment, referencing superior court judgments including PLD 2025 SC 354 and international jurisprudence such as Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (477 US 57, 1986)
The order emphasized that consent is not a valid defense where a clear power imbalance exists and that abuse of authority constitutes harassment regardless of apparent willingness
The Ombudsperson noted that the Vice Chancellor admitted possessing hiring and firing authority and supervisory control over the complainant. Despite alleging manipulation, he appointed her as coordinator, Staff Officer, and Deputy Director without formal notification. Witness testimony, including that of PW 5 Brigadier (Retd.) Mehboob Qadir, confirmed that she exercised unusual access and influence within the Vice Chancellor’s office, including incidents where she occupied his chair and used official telephones without disciplinary action being taken
WhatsApp messages placed on record showed the Vice Chancellor addressing her as “Zalim Princess,” “Lallo Jeenu,” “Meenu,” “Love you good night,” and sending emotionally intimate and poetic messages, including a message dated 10 April 2022 offering to reach her within ten minutes if needed
The Ombudsperson found no credible evidence supporting the claim that his phone had been cloned, and observed that no immediate complaint or legal action was initiated by him regarding alleged digital manipulation.
NO SEXUAL TORTURE OR HARASSMENT TO WOMEN PRISONERS IN 9 MAY CASES – FOSPAH REJECTS PTI’S NARRATIVE
On the financial misappropriation allegation of Rs. 27.44 million and the Rs. 10 million vehicle proceeds, the Ombudsperson held that no written agreement, contemporaneous complaint, or credible documentary evidence was produced to substantiate dishonest entrustment or breach of trust. Bank transactions alone were deemed insufficient to establish embezzlement. The allegation was therefore rejected for lack of proof.
Crucially, the Ombudsperson ruled that in a teacher student relationship, sexually colored conduct is entirely proscribed, morally and legally, regardless of whether it appears welcome. The decision observed that “consent” cannot be treated as voluntary where institutional power is involved and held that the Vice Chancellor abused his authority to develop inappropriate relations and grant undue professional benefits
Applying the standard of preponderance of probabilities, and noting that the case had in fact been proved “beyond a shadow of doubt,” the Ombudsperson dismissed the complaint filed by Dr. Shehzad Ali Khan and accepted the complaint of the female officer. He was found guilty of sexual harassment under Section 4(ii)(c) and 4(ii)(e) and was ordered to be removed from service. The order warned that if allowed to remain Vice Chancellor, he was likely to repeat such conduct.
The ruling underscores that no public office is above the law and that institutional authority cannot be used as leverage for personal relationships. It also sends a strong signal to public sector universities that professional boundaries, especially between teachers and students, are legally non negotiable.
Further criminal proceedings relating to FIRs mentioned by both parties remain pending before competent courts and were not adjudicated in this forum to avoid prejudice.
Dr. Shehzad’s Response
Dr. Shehzad denied the allegations, stating that he had supported the officer due to her modest background. He claimed to have transferred Rs. 40 million to her account, including Rs. 10 million in cash, for the purpose of purchasing property on his behalf. However, he alleges that she resorted to blackmail during the property transfer process.
He added that he had visited her family home in Battagram and met her parents, but reconciliation efforts failed due to what he described as “unacceptable conditions” set by the officer.
