Sindh Ombudsman finds KE CEO guilty of harassment, orders removal
The Sindh Provincial Ombudsman has ordered the immediate removal of K-Electric's Chief Executive Officer, Moonis Alvi, and imposed a fine of Rs2.5 million after finding him guilty of workplace harassment.
The order came in response to a complaint filed by Mahreen Aziz Khan, a former consultant and the company's first female CxO since its corporate restructuring began in 2009. The complaint, lodged in November 2020 under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, accused Alvi of harassment and creating a hostile environment.
In his verdict, Justice (retd) Shahnawaz Tariq, who presided over the case, stated that Alvi had committed harassment and caused psychological distress to Khan and her team.
Also Read: Pakistan launches new remote sensing satellite from China
'Accused No.1 Moonis Abdullah Alvi has committed harassment, created hostile environment and caused mental agony at the workplace to the complainant Mahreen Aziz Khan and her team,' the ruling said, citing Section 2(h) of the Act.
The Ombudsman ordered Alvi's removal from service under Section 4(ii)(d) of the Act and directed him to pay the fine within one month. In case of non-compliance, the verdict allows for the seizure of his movable and immovable assets, and the blocking of his national identity card and passport.
Three other individuals — Rizwan Dallal (Chief People Officer), Col (R) Wahid Asghar (Chief of Security), and Khalid Rafi (Board Member, HR Committee) — were also named in the original complaint but were discharged due to lack of evidence.
'In the absence of direct evidence, the allegations against the three co-accused could not be substantiated,' the ruling said.
In a statement shared on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), Alvi expressed disappointment with the ruling.
I have always upheld the values of integrity and dignity in professional interactions, and I deeply believe in fostering safe and inclusive workplaces for all.
The recent verdict is deeply distressing to me. While I respect the legal process and the institutions that
(1/4) — Moonis Alvi (@alvimoonis) July 31, 2025
'I have always maintained professionalism and integrity in all workplace relationships,' he said. 'The recent verdict is extremely distressing. I respect the legal system, though the outcome does not reflect the reality of my experience.'
Alvi added that he is reviewing the decision with legal advisors and intends to appeal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
NEPRA approves Rs1.89 per unit cut in power tariff
Listen to article The National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) has approved a relief of Rs1.89 per unit in electricity tariff for consumers across the country under the quarterly adjustment charges for April–June 2025. The power tariff cut—expected to bring Rs55.87 billion in relief—will apply across the country, including K-Electric consumers. However, lifeline and pre-paid meter users are excluded from the benefit. Read More: Power consumers may get Rs0.77 per unit relief The adjustment will be effective for three months, from August to October 2025, subject to final approval by the federal government. The decision comes after distribution companies requested tariff reductions under the quarterly mechanism. NEPRA conducted a public hearing on August 4 before giving its approval. Quarterly tariff adjustments are used to reconcile costs related to power generation and capacity charges, separate from the monthly fuel price adjustments.
Business Recorder
15 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Recreational clubs no more non-profit bodies: FBR
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has excluded recreational clubs from the definition of non-profit organisations. According to the details released by the FBR on Finance Act 2025, the clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the ordinance, which provides for taxability of income derived by cooperative societies from the sale of goods, immoveable property or provision of services to its members has been explained through earlier Act, to always include aforementioned incomes as chargeable to tax under the provisions of this Ordinance. FBR eases key Finance Act provisions The scope of this explanation regarding tax on income on account of sale of goods or rendering of services by cooperative societies to its members has been expanded to say that it shall mutatis mutandis apply to recreational clubs involved in similar kind of transactions with its members. The corresponding amendment has been made in clause (36) of section 2 of the Ordinance wherein those recreational clubs have been excluded from the definition of non-profit organizations which charge membership fee exceeding rupees one million for any class of new members as joining fee, FBR added. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
LHC rules delay in appeals not justified by filing in wrong forum
Listen to article The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that delays in appeals against convictions can only be excused when a sufficient and reasonable cause is demonstrated. Relying on the incorrect forum does not meet the legal requirements for delay condonation. The ruling came during the hearing of a case where a convict had filed an appeal against his conviction in the district court, ignoring the requirement that such appeals, under the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 (amended in 2015), should be filed directly with the LHC. The key legal question before the court was whether the appellant's decision to file his appeal in the wrong forum, which led to its dismissal, could justify the filing of a fresh appeal at the LHC beyond the statutory limitation period. The convict, Zainul Abideen, was sentenced on May 15, 2017, by a magistrate in Lahore. However, instead of approaching the LHC, as mandated by Section 45-A of the Act of 2011, he filed an appeal in the Sessions Court on May 22, 2017. This forum lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the said Act. The appeal remained pending in the Sessions Court for around seven months and was ultimately dismissed on December 21, 2017, for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant then filed a fresh appeal at the LHC on January 19, 2018, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, seeking to condone the delay in filing his appeal. Justice Abher Gul Khan, who was hearing the case, noted that the appellant had failed to challenge or seek to set aside the judgment passed by the additional sessions judge, which dismissed his earlier appeal. This lack of challenge left the earlier dismissal order intact, which could have implications for the present appeal's maintainability. The judge further observed that during the seven-month period when the appeal was pending in the sessions court, neither the appellant nor his legal counsel addressed the critical legal issue of the forum's lack of jurisdiction. Instead, they passively awaited a favourable outcome. It was only after the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction that they chose to file the current appeal before the LHC. Justice Khan emphasised that while the court often exercises discretion in condoning delays, it is not automatic. The court would not routinely condone delays unless the appellant could provide valid and convincing reasons. The judge highlighted that such condonation cannot be treated as a mechanical rule to apply in every case. The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the Punjab Food Authority, alleging offenses under Sections 22-A and 24-A of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011. The judicial magistrate took cognisance of the case and summoned the appellant. After trial, the magistrate found Zain guilty of an offence under Section 24-A of the Act, sentencing him to one month's imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs100,000. Since the sentence was less than one year, the magistrate exercised discretion under Section 382-A of the CrPC and postponed the execution of the sentence to allow the appellant the opportunity to file an appeal, contingent upon him furnishing bail bonds of Rs200,000.
