NADIA SARWAR vs AQEEL ABBAS, UNIT HEAD, NBP, ISLAMABAD S — 2025 PLC(CS) 358 ISLAMABAD

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

NADIA SARWAR VS AQEEL ABBAS, UNIT HEAD, NBP, ISLAMABAD S. 8---Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Filing and Disposal of Complaints) Rules, 2013, R.10---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---Proceedings before Ombudsperson---Rules of evidence---Applicability---Although provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 have not been made applicable upon proceedings before Ombudsperson per se yet Courts are not prohibited from adopting any just and fair rules of evidence. Citation Name: 2025 PLC(CS) 358 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case NADIA SARWAR VS AQEEL ABBAS, UNIT HEAD, NBP, ISLAMABAD S.8 (3)---Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Filing and Disposal of Complaints) Rules, 2013, R.10---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 1(2)---Harassment of women at workplace---Proceedings---Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 is a special law and pursuant to S. 1(2), Cr.P.C. nothing contained in Cr.P.C. applies to workplace harassment unless there is a specific provision to the contrary---There is no section in Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 which specifically makes the provisions of Cr.P.C. applicable thereto---Nothing contained in Cr.P.C. affects workplace harassment pursuant to S. 1(2), Cr.P.C.---Where there is no express provision regarding conduct of proceedings or inquiry, Ombudsperson may, as per S. 8(3) of Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, read with R.10 of Workplace Harassment Rules, 2013conduct proceedings or inquiry as per provisions of Cr.P.C. to arrive at a just conclusion and may formulate recommendations and findings. Citation Name: 2025 PLC(CS) 358 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case NADIA SARWAR VS AQEEL ABBAS, UNIT HEAD, NBP, ISLAMABAD S. 8--- Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Filing and Disposal of Complaints) Rules, 2013, R.10---Instances of harassment---Proof---Non-mentioning of any instance in complaint---Effect---Where complainant was subjected to harassment over a period of almost one year, it was conceivable that there were numerous incidents which she did not exhaustively mention in complaint to Ombudsperson---Evidence of such incidents was not inadmissible on such score as Workplace Harassment Rules, do not make it mandatory to do so. Citation Name: 2025 PLC(CS) 358 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case NADIA SARWAR VS AQEEL ABBAS, UNIT HEAD, NBP, ISLAMABAD Harmonious interpretation---Scope---Statutes are interpreted harmoniously and no provision of law can be interpreted in a manner that would make it contradictory to another provision of the same law or make another provision ineffective. Citation Name: 2025 PLC(CS) 358 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case NADIA SARWAR VS AQEEL ABBAS, UNIT HEAD, NBP, ISLAMABAD S.8---Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Filing and Disposal of Complaints) Rules, 2013, R.10----Workplace harassment---Proof---Minor discrepancies---Scope---Petitioner / complainant was aggrieved of harassment at her workplace caused by respondents / senior officials---Ombudsperson allowed complaint of petitioner / complainant and directed the authorities to proceed against respondents / senior officials for harassing petitioner at workplace---Appellate Authority set aside order passed by Ombudsperson on the ground that there were discrepancies in evidence---Validity---Minor differences were not sufficient to reject testimony of two witnesses who otherwise remained unshattered---It is normal course of human conduct that while narrating a particular incident, there may occur minor discrepancies due to errors of observation, memory loss due to lapse of time, shock at the time of occurrence etc.---Matter was not disposed of by Appellate Authority in a legal and judicious manner and order passed suffered from gross misreading and non-reading of evidence and misapplication of law which had resulted in miscarriage of justice---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction to serve the cause of justice, set aside order passed by Appellate Authority---High Court restored order passed by Ombudsperson and directed bank authorities to implement recommendations made in the order---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

NADIA SARWAR vs AQEEL ABBAS, UNIT HEAD, NBP, ISLAMABAD S — 2025 PLC(CS) 358 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC