Raja TANVEER SAFDAR vs Mrs — 2024 PLC(CS) 957 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Raja TANVEER SAFDAR VS Mrs.TEHMINA YASMEEN S.4---Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act (IV of 2010), S.8---Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002), S. 9---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 13(a)---Protection against double punishment---Double jeopardy---Non-applicability of---Petitioner wrote a letter addressed to the concerned authorities wherein he made certain allegations against the respondent (lady)----On the basis of the said Letter, an inquiry was initiated against the respondent, who was exonerated from the complaint---In the meantime, respondent filed a suit for recovery of damages against the petitioner under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 (2002 Ordinance) on the grounds that the petitioner defamed and damaged her reputation on the basis of the letter---Said suit was decreed in favour of respondent---Meanwhile, respondent also filed a complaint against the petitioner under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA), which was inquired into and the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct as he had levelled false and fabricated allegations against respondent in the letter, and, major penalty of forfeiture of past service for a period of two years was imposed upon him---During this time, respondent also filed a complaint against the petitioner under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ("2010 Act") on the grounds of sexual harassment before the Ombudsperson alleging therein that the petitioner came to her office unnecessarily on one pretext or the other---Petitioner was found guilty of harassment and major penalty of compulsory retirement from service was imposed upon him---Contention of the petitioner was that the orders under PEEDA, the 2010 Act and the 2002 Ordinance were hit by the principle of double jeopardy---Validity---There were three different decisions under three separate laws against the petitioner---Each of these laws are special laws which operate within their given jurisdiction and can result in penal consequences if the requirements of the law are fulfilled---Hence, a conviction under any of these laws will not prevent or bar a conviction under the other two laws which operate within their own domain for a specific purpose---Respondent initiated a claim of sexual harassment at the workplace against the petitioner based on instances and evidence of harassment, which was considered by the Ombudsperson, who concluded that he caused harassment to respondent---In the suit for defamation, the court determined that the contents of the petitioner's letter fell within the definition of defamation---So the court awarded her damages---Finally, so far as action under PEEDA was concerned, the inquiry was conducted against the petitioner on the basis of the letter, which he had specifically written in his official capacity and the said inquiry discovered that the same was false and incorrect, hence, punishment for his misconduct was awarded in the form of forfeiture of past service for a period of two years---Even though the parties were the same, the cause of action was separate in each case before different forums with distinct penal consequences emanating out of its respective statutory laws---Argument of double jeopardy was misplaced and without any basis---Petition was dismissed and leave was refused. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 957 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Raja TANVEER SAFDAR VS Mrs.TEHMINA YASMEEN Ss. 8 & 9---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Ombudsperson and Governor---Final forums on factual side---Interference in orders of Ombudsperson or Governor by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction---Scope---Ombudsperson and the Governor both are forums of fact where parties can lead their evidence for a factual determination---Therefore, the Order of the Governor will be the final order on the factual side, which cannot be then challenged before the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction in the form and substance of a second appeal on the facts of the case---High Court cannot interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction on findings of fact recorded by the competent court, tribunal or authority unless the findings of fact are so perverse and not based on the evidence which would result in an error of law and thus, justified interference---Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the factual controversy comes to an end after the Order of the Governor, and if, there is any jurisdictional defect or error and procedural improprieties of the fact-finding forum only then the High Court can interfere. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 957 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Raja TANVEER SAFDAR VS Mrs.TEHMINA YASMEEN art. 13(a)---Protection against double punishment---Double jeopardy---Scope---Protection given under article 13(a) of the Constitution is against prosecution and punishment, which means the trial and its proceedings followed by a conviction---If the first prosecution results in an acquittal, so far as article 13(a) of the Constitution is concerned, the second prosecution is not prohibited---Concept of double jeopardy essentially means that a person cannot be tried multiple times for the same offence on which there is a conviction based on the same set of facts as they should not be put in peril twice---It is based on the rule of conclusiveness and finality which requires that once a court has taken cognizance of an offence, tried a person and convicted them, then for the same offence that person cannot be tried again---So, the basic question is that in the case of double jeopardy, the second trial should be on the same set of facts of the first trial which resulted in a conviction for the same offence, which would require the same evidence before the court---Basically, this means that the case has to be the same as the one that has already resulted in a conviction but if the proceedings are different in substance and law then it will not be a case of double jeopardy. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 957 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Raja TANVEER SAFDAR VS Mrs.TEHMINA YASMEEN S. 2(h)---Harassment---Scope and meaning---Harassment means gender-based harassment and discrimination, which can be sexual in nature---Any action that causes interference with work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment falls within the definition of harassment under Section 2(h) of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 957 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Raja TANVEER SAFDAR VS Mrs.TEHMINA YASMEEN Ss. 2(h) & 8---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 14---Right to work with respect and dignity---Scope---Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ("2010 Act"), objective of---Harassment under the 2010 Act goes to the basic and most fundamental of rights, that being the right to dignity, where a citizen must be able to live and work with respect and value---Dignity is an inherent right well-accepted in the international legal order, which ensures that everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring an existence worthy of human dignity, which is supplemented by social protection---Respectability, acceptability, inclusivity, safety and equitability are the prerequisites for a safe and dignified workspace---This is a crucial objective of the 2010 Act being to uphold and protect the right of dignity of employees at the workplace by ensuring fair treatment, non-discrimination, mutuality of respect, and socio-economic justice.

Raja TANVEER SAFDAR vs Mrs — 2024 PLC(CS) 957 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC