LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that harassment occurring outside office premises can still qualify as workplace harassment if it is linked to official duties or abuse of supervisory authority.
Read More: LHC upholds dismissal of Jhang official for harassing female teacher
Justice Raheel Kamran issued the verdict while dismissing a petition filed by a government official who challenged his removal from service after being found guilty of harassing a female subordinate. The penalty had earlier been imposed by the Punjab Ombudsperson and upheld by the governor.
The petitioner, a district manager, was accused by an ad hoc teacher of persistent harassment, including inappropriate messages, indecent behaviour, and demands for an illicit relationship in exchange for professional favours. The complainant also alleged that the official forcibly entered her residence and attempted to assault her.
The petitioner argued before the court that the alleged incident took place at a private residence and therefore fell outside the legal definition of a “workplace” under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. However, the court rejected this interpretation.
Justice Kamran observed that the law defines a workplace broadly and includes any situation connected to official work or employment-related activity, even if it occurs beyond office boundaries. He noted that when a supervisor uses employment-related leverage, such as threats to terminate services, the required legal nexus is established regardless of location.
The court also dismissed objections regarding the use of WhatsApp messages as evidence, noting that the petitioner had failed to challenge their authenticity during the inquiry. It clarified that proceedings before the ombudsperson are administrative in nature and not bound by strict criminal trial standards.
Read More: LHC orders police to stop harassing Indian woman and her husband
The judge further ruled that a pending criminal case does not bar disciplinary proceedings, as criminal accountability and workplace dignity fall under separate legal frameworks. Concluding the judgment, the court held that the findings against the petitioner were lawful, reasonable, and supported by the record, leaving no grounds for judicial interference.