by Table of Contents
- Overview of the Case
- Details of the Allegations
- Findings and Official Ruling
- Legal and Institutional Context
- Impact on Academia and Gender Equality
- Institutional Reforms and Recommendations
- Conclusion
1. Overview of the Case
In October 2025, the Vice-Chancellor of the Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science & Technology (FUUAST), Dr. Zabta Khan Shinwari, was officially found guilty of workplace harassment by the Federal Ombudsman for Protection Against Harassment (FOSPAH). The decision came after a formal inquiry into complaints made by female faculty members regarding derogatory and sexist remarks allegedly made by the vice-chancellor.
This ruling has sparked widespread attention in the education sector, raising questions about workplace culture, gender sensitivity, and accountability in academic leadership across Pakistan.
2. Details of the Allegations
The complaint centered on a series of remarks made by Dr. Shinwari during meetings and conversations with university staff. In one instance, he reportedly claimed that women above the age of thirty-five experience hormonal changes that make them emotionally unstable and difficult to work with.
Such statements were considered not only unprofessional but deeply offensive and discriminatory. The comments were seen as an attempt to undermine the credibility, intelligence, and emotional capacity of female colleagues purely on the basis of gender and age.
Several faculty members described the environment under his leadership as uncomfortable and disrespectful, particularly for women in mid-career academic positions. The complainants stated that such language created a hostile atmosphere and negatively affected their ability to perform their duties.
ALSO RAED
Punjab to Launch Urdu Textbooks in Schools
3. Findings and Official Ruling
After reviewing the evidence and witness statements, FOSPAH concluded that the remarks made by the vice-chancellor constituted workplace harassment under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010.
The Ombudsperson declared that sexist and demeaning comments about women’s mental stability fall under the legal definition of harassment because they create a hostile and discriminatory environment. It was emphasized that harassment does not only include physical or direct misconduct; it can also include verbal or psychological actions that demean an employee based on gender.
As a result, a penalty of censure was imposed on Dr. Shinwari. The university’s Syndicate was instructed to monitor his behavior closely and ensure compliance with workplace conduct standards. Additionally, the institution was directed to establish a permanent committee to handle future complaints of harassment and to display the official Code of Conduct across all campuses.
The Ombudsperson also stressed that individuals in positions of authority have an elevated responsibility to maintain professional decorum and act as role models within their institutions.
4. Legal and Institutional Context
The Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 defines harassment broadly, covering not only unwanted advances but also behavior that insults or discriminates based on gender.
Under Section 4 of the Act, public institutions and universities are required to have internal inquiry committees, conduct awareness sessions, and ensure all employees understand their rights and obligations. Failure to implement these measures can expose organizations to further legal consequences.
In this case, FOSPAH’s decision also highlighted institutional negligence. The absence of a properly functioning inquiry committee and lack of awareness campaigns at FUUAST were identified as systemic problems that allowed such behavior to go unchecked.
According to the Federal Ombudsman Secretariat for Protection Against Harassment (FOSPAH), all public institutions are required to enforce workplace harassment policies and establish inquiry committees. You can learn more about their framework and official guidelines on the FOSPAH official website.
The ruling, therefore, served a dual purpose — holding the individual accountable and compelling the institution to strengthen its internal mechanisms to prevent future violations.
5. Impact on Academia and Gender Equality
This case has become a major talking point in academic circles across Pakistan. It demonstrates that even senior officials in prestigious public universities are not above the law and must adhere to the same ethical and legal standards as any other employee.
For women in academia, this decision offers both relief and validation. It reaffirms that sexist attitudes and remarks — even those framed as “harmless jokes” or “personal opinions” — can have serious professional consequences.
The case also shines a light on the broader issue of gender bias in higher education. Many female academics in Pakistan face subtle yet persistent barriers to advancement, ranging from exclusion from leadership roles to inappropriate comments in professional settings. This ruling underscores the importance of creating workplaces where every employee, regardless of gender or seniority, feels respected and valued.
6. Institutional Reforms and Recommendations
Following the ruling, several key recommendations have been made to improve FUUAST’s workplace culture and compliance practices:
- Formation of a Standing Inquiry Committee – A dedicated body should investigate future harassment complaints promptly and transparently.
- Display of the Code of Conduct – The university must visibly post anti-harassment policies in all departments and administrative offices.
- Regular Training and Workshops – Sensitization programs should be held for both staff and students to build awareness about gender equality, harassment laws, and respectful communication.
- Leadership Accountability – University leadership should undergo periodic evaluations focused on ethical conduct and professional behavior.
- Anonymous Reporting Channels – Establish safe and confidential ways for faculty and students to report misconduct without fear of retaliation.
These measures are essential not only for compliance with the law but also for restoring confidence among university employees and students.
7. Conclusion
The verdict against the Federal Urdu University vice-chancellor marks an important moment in the ongoing struggle for safe and equitable workplaces in Pakistan’s academic sector. It serves as a reminder that leadership comes with the duty to uphold dignity, fairness, and respect for all employees.
By holding a senior official accountable, the ruling sends a strong message: harassment — whether physical, verbal, or psychological — will not be tolerated, regardless of rank or reputation.
For FUUAST, this decision presents an opportunity to rebuild trust and set a precedent for ethical governance. For other institutions, it is a wake-up call to evaluate internal systems and ensure that every member of their community can work free from fear, bias, or intimidation.
Ultimately, the case reinforces a fundamental truth — that academic excellence is inseparable from human dignity. A respectful, inclusive workplace is not just a legal necessity; it is the foundation of any institution that claims to educate, inspire, and lead by example.
