Punishment must be proportionate: SC
In a service matter involving a sub-inspector, the apex court stressed that the principle of proportionality offers a structured framework for judicial review of administrative actions.
The four-page judgment, authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, explained that the principle of proportionality provides a structured framework for judicial review of administrative actions.
"Developed across various constitutional jurisdictions, it involves a four-step test: (i) the measure must pursue a legitimate aim; (ii) be suitable to achieve that aim; (iii) be necessary, in that no less restrictive alternative exists; and (iv) strike a fair balance between the measure's impact on individual rights and the public interest."
This court has recently introduced and adopted this four-stage test to assess the legality and fairness of administrative and disciplinary decisions. Such a framework ensures that any interference with rights is justified, necessary, and lawful," reads the four-page order.
The judgment was passed in a service matter where the Punjab Service Tribunal had partially allowed the appeal of a sub-inspector and modified the penalty from a two-stage to a one-stage reduction in pay through an order dated February 2, 2016.
According to the tribunal, while an investigation had been conducted, the prosecution "failed to produce even a shred of evidence" to substantiate the allegations. A division bench of the apex court, led by Justice Shah, heard the sub-inspector's appeal against the tribunal's ruling.
The order noted that despite these clear findings, the tribunal opted only to reduce the penalty rather than exonerate the petitioner.
"It appears that the Tribunal relied, albeit implicitly, on the principle of proportionality, finding the original penalty disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. However, this application was both legally flawed and logically inconsistent with its own conclusion when no misconduct was established. The Tribunal failed to properly exercise its discretion under Section 5 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, which empowers it to confirm, set aside, vary, or modify impugned orders. While the Tribunal has authority to vary the punishment in appropriate cases, such discretion must be exercised judiciously grounded in the record, legal standards, and principles of fairness," the order stated.
The court noted that judicial interference in disciplinary penalties is only warranted when the punishment is "arbitrary, perverse, or based on irrelevant considerations". "Once the Tribunal found that the allegations were wholly unsubstantiated, the only lawful outcome was to exonerate the petitioner."
The judgment further elaborated that proportionality fosters a stable and systematic method for constitutional adjudication.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
12 hours ago
- Express Tribune
'Why only carriers face music in narcotics case?'
The Supreme Court has raised serious concerns over the systemic failure of law enforcement in tackling the narcotics trade beyond its most vulnerable participants, observing that prosecutions overwhelmingly target only drug "carriers" – mostly from underprivileged backgrounds – while major perpetrators remain untouched. The observations came in a 17-page written judgment authored by Justice Athar Minallah, in which the court acquitted two individuals who had earlier been sentenced to life imprisonment in a narcotics case. The ruling was issued by a three-member bench headed by Justice Minallah, and comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan. "There are several law-enforcement agencies vested with powers to apprehend and prosecute those who are involved in the crimes relating to narcotic drugs, including a special agency, the Anti-Narcotics Force established under the Act of 1997," the verdict notes. The judgment calls into question the effectiveness of these institutions, particularly when viewed against the scale and pervasiveness of the drug menace. "The people of Pakistan have to bear the financial burden for maintaining these law enforcement agencies entrusted with the onerous task to eradicate the menace of narcotic drugs from the society. Have they achieved their designated goal? The answer is an emphatic 'No'," it reads. The court further lamented the growing spread of narcotics across the country, stating: "The evil of narcotic drugs has spread throughout the country and it cannot be disputed that it has reached the educational institutions where they are freely accessible." The bench pointed out that even in the few cases where arrests are made, prosecutions often do not result in convictions, raising further doubts about the integrity and professionalism of investigative processes. "The law enforcement agencies have not gone beyond arresting carriers and then, in many cases, failing to prove the guilt even to their extent. If the society has to be freed from the evil of narcotic drugs then each law enforcement agency has to perform effectively and in the most professional manner." "They have to be held accountable for their omissions and lapses committed during the investigations or while prosecuting a case. The future generations cannot be exposed to the menace of narcotic drugs merely because the several law enforcement agencies entrusted with the onerous duty to free the society from this evil fail to perform effectively or are seen as complicit. "The buck stops with the Federal and Provincial Governments, as the case may be, because they are ultimately responsible for the overall and general supervision of the law enforcement agencies. The responsibility does not end with the Executive branch of the State because the Judicial branch is also equally responsible in ensuring that the trial is conducted fairly and that a just decision is reached. "This case also shows that the trial court had failed in exercising its powers vested under the law. "We, therefore, expect that the Government of Sindh which, according to section 5 (1) of the Act of 2009, exercises general superintendence over the Prosecution Service and is responsible for ensuring achievement of the objectives of the Act of 2009, will take effective steps so that cases involving crimes relating to narcotic substances are dealt with effectively and in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of the investigators and Prosecutors. "The Prosecutor General Sindh is expected to examine this case and take appropriate action so that the omissions observed in this case are not repeated. The prosecutor General is further advised to consider issuing guidelines in exercise of its functions under section 9-A (1) of the Act of 2009 for the Prosecutors and officers responsible for investigations relating to effective and efficient prosecution. The High Court is also expected to consider laying down a policy of regular training of judicial officers relating to conducting of criminal trials. The order also said that this case has emanated from the province of Sindh where the Provincial Assembly of Sindh has promulgated and enacted the Sindh Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution Functions and Powers) Act 2009. "The Criminal Prosecution Service of Sindh has been established under this legislation. The Act of 2009 sets out the powers, functions and responsibilities of the prosecution service in conducting prosecutions on behalf of the Government. "The administration of this service vests in the Government. Section 9 (1) explicitly provides that the Prosecutors shall be responsible for the conducting of prosecutions on behalf of the Government. The Prosecutor General is empowered under section 9-A (1) to issue general guidelines for the Prosecutors or officers responsible for investigation for effective and efficient prosecution.
Express Tribune
15 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Gandapur dismisses rift, defends budget
Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister, Ali Amin Gandapur, has dismissed any speculation regarding the stability of his government, stating that all members are united and no one is defecting. "If anyone is eager to bring a no-confidence motion, they are welcome to try — it will only expose the truth," he remarked. He added that had the budget not been passed, the government would have collapsed, and the blame would lie solely with PTI, while opponents would be celebrating. Speaking informally to senior journalists at the Chief Minister's House in Peshawar on Friday, Gandapur reiterated his call to the federal government to open trade routes with Afghanistan — from Chitral to Angoor Adda in Waziristan. "This move will not only boost trade but also ensure regional peace," he said. He also urged that individuals with legal status and those wishing to acquire Pakistani citizenship should be granted it, to promote foreign investment in the province. Gandapur addressed internal party tensions surrounding the budget, stating, "There was propaganda from within that the budget shouldn't be presented, and once it was, noise was made about not passing it. However, when Barrister Saif briefed our party's Patron-in-Chief, he expressed satisfaction with the budget's approval." He revealed that only two members abstained from voting for the budget, adding, "Everyone knows who they're aligned with." He hinted that more clarity on internal matters will emerge once the newly elected members of the provincial assembly are sworn in, and said the party's strategy will be shaped accordingly. The chief minister also explained that due to recent legal interpretations, none of the current assembly members are officially affiliated with PTI, as the Supreme Court's previous decision has been nullified following the July 21 Senate ruling. "Everyone is now considered independent, except me," he emphasized. "I'm still a PTI member, as I listed PTI as my party affiliation in my nomination papers." Responding to criticism over alleged extravagant spending, Gandapur clarified: "I didn't spend Rs115 million on biscuits. That amount was used to provide meals for 400 Class-IV staff members at the CM House and Secretariat." He defended his fiscal record, noting, "While I do spend, I've also saved Rs250 billion. It's the responsibility of political leaders to keep bureaucracy in check — and we will do that." While acknowledging that corruption hasn't been entirely eradicated, Gandapur claimed significant control has been achieved. "I'm accountable not for 12 years but for the 15 months of my current tenure," he added. He concluded by announcing plans to revive closed industries in the province by ensuring the provision of low-cost electricity.
Express Tribune
16 hours ago
- Express Tribune
LHC's May 9 ruling
Listen to article It seems political instability and an unpleasant crisscross with the judiciary is there to stay. The detailed order of a division bench of the LHC that found former PM Imran Khan involved in a 'conspiracy' linked to the May 9 upheavals has come too late, thus putting a question mark on its veracity. The court ironically has summarised its entire contention, reliance and judgment merely on the testimony of two police officials presented by the state prosecution. This is simply a travesty of justice and is in need of a holistic approach to dispense fair play in all judiciousness. It is irksome to note that both the sleuths were present on two different occasions in various parts of Punjab with the accused, and were the only ones to hear him instigate his workers to vandalise state properties in case of his arrest. Thus, the charges of criminal conspiracy and abetment slapped on the incarcerated leader have come to not only delay his lawful bail application, but also to prolong an episode of controversy and discontent that has wrecked socio-political harmony for long. The May 9 buzzword has come a long way. Hundreds of arrested men and women have gone through trials and tribulations. And when the tale was nearing its legal and logical end, as judgments and lawful interpretations of proceedings are in order, this new trial after two years hints at nothing but vendetta. It is a foregone conclusion that the judiciary is under pressure, especially after the 26th amendment, and dispensing an impartial trial to the imprisoned opposition party members is a remote possibility. It is, thus, incumbent upon the judiciary to see that justice is seen to be done, and the cases should not be heard and decided in limbo without seeking relevant pieces of witnesses as ordained by law. Learned Justice Athar Minallah had a point, when he told an audience at the Supreme Court, that the society is polarising owing to the phenomenon that the state is trying to construe self-concocted decisions. Time to step back from this disgusting tendency.
