DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (AUTHORITY), JHANG vs GHULAM SHABBIR — 2026 PLC(CS) 456 SUPREME-COURT

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

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (AUTHORITY), JHANG VS GHULAM SHABBIR. Disciplinary proceedings---Penalty---Principle of proportionality---Essence, applicability and scope---At its core, the principle of proportionality requires that when an administrative authority exercises discretionary power, it must strike a fair balance between the adverse effects of its decision on the rights, liberties, or interests of individuals and the legitimate aim or purpose the decision seeks to achieve---A more refined version of the principle of proportionality analysis adopts a structured, four-stage test, requiring courts to address the following questions to determine whether an impugned measure is constitutionally or legally justifiable, which includes: (i) Legitimacy: Does the action pursue a legitimate objective recognized by law? (ii) Suitability (Rational Connection): Is the measure capable of achieving that objective, i.e., is there a rational nexus between the means employed and the aim pursued? (iii) Necessity: Could the same objective have been achieved through a less restrictive or less onerous alternative? and (iv) Proportionality stricto sensu (Balancing): Does the measure maintain a fair balance between the severity of its impact on the individual and the importance of the public interest it serves?---Moreover, Articles 4, 14 and 25 of the Constitution collectively impose a duty upon the courts to ensure that executive or disciplinary measures not only pursue lawful objectives but do so in a manner that is just, fair, and proportionate---In disciplinary jurisprudence, proportionality maintains a delicate balance between public and private rights---While civil servants are entitled to procedural fairness and protection from arbitrary sanctions, these rights must be balanced against the compelling public interest in maintaining the integrity and accountability of public institutions---The principle of proportionality at its most functional level ultimately hinges on a singular, decisive question: whether the interference with private rights is justified by a corresponding and weighty public interest---This balancing offers a structured framework for assessing the sustainability of disciplinary penalties---The penalty imposed must be evaluated not in isolation, but in relation to the degree of harm caused to the public interest and the severity of intrusion upon the private rights of the officer---A constitutionally and administratively sustainable penalty is one that serves a legitimate public objective without inflicting excessive or unnecessary harm upon individual rights---The test is not merely whether discipline is warranted, but whether the measure adopted strikes a fair and reasonable equilibrium between the legitimate aims of the institution and the human dignity of the individual---Accordingly, the principle of proportionality, in its clearest form may be said to rest on the following standard: The action taken achieves a necessary public goal without causing disproportionate harm to private interest---Furthermore, while proportionality strengthens constitutional adjudication when properly employed, its misuse can undermine the very values it seeks to uphold---A disproportionate decision may also violate the rule of law.

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (AUTHORITY), JHANG vs GHULAM SHABBIR — 2026 PLC(CS) 456 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLC