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. Rr. 4 & 5---Disciplinary proceedings, initiation of---Major penalty of dismissal from service, imposing of---Employee of district court---Allegation of taking bribe---Service Tribunal converted major penalty into penalty of forfeiture of two years of service---Principle of proportionality---Applicability and scope---To reduce the penalty imposed the principle of proportionality requires a structured and reasoned application, balancing the severity of misconduct with the public interest---Facts of the case in brevity were that the respondent (employee) was serving as an Ahlmad (court record keeper) in the district court where he faced disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999, on charges of corruption and misconduct---The inquiry report found that he had received bribe in exchange for securing employment for the complainant's relatives---The inquiry officer found him guilty and recommended dismissal from service, which penalty was enforced by the competent authority i.e. (District and Sessions Judge)---His departmental appeal remained undecided, leading him to file an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which found the charges proved but reduced the penalty to forfeiture of two years of service by stating that the dismissal was harsh---Question before the Supreme Court was as to "whether the Service Tribunal was justified in converting the major penalty of dismissal from service of the respondent into a lesser penalty of forfeiture of two years of service after having found that the charges of misconduct stood proved?"---Held: The tribunal without explicitly mentioning it, relied upon the principle of proportionality to reduce the penalty imposed on the respondent---In the present case, the charge of corruption against the respondent, serving as an Ahlmad (court record keeper), a role central to preserving the integrity and fairness of the judicial process, had been unequivocally proven---Significantly, the respondent did not challenge the findings of The Tribunal before the Supreme Court---The importance of an Ahlmad to the functioning of a fair and just judicial system could not be overstated---Supreme Court observed that; when court officials engage in misconduct, whether by accepting bribes or abusing their position, they do not merely tarnish individual cases; they strike at the very foundation of public confidence in the administration of justice; that judicial service is not merely a profession, it is a public trust---An Ahlmad proven to be involved in corruption could irreparably damage the administration of justice, undermining public confidence in the justice system by tainting the credibility of the decisions it delivered---In such a context, the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service was not only legitimate but necessary to protect public trust and uphold the rule of law---However, the tribunal reduced the penalty of the respondent to forfeiture of two years of service describing the original penalty as "grave and harsh" without offering any cogent reasons or legal justification---While the conclusion of the Tribunal reflected a compassionate approach, the application of the principle of proportionality could not rest on bare assertions or subjective impressions, rather, it was a structured principle that demanded cogent reasoning and a transparent, systematic evaluation of the nature, gravity, and context of the established misconduct, assessed against the penalty imposed---In the absence of a clear, structured, and transparent justification, the tribunal could not simply conclude that a penalty was excessive based on personal belief or an undefined sense of fairness, instead, the Tribunal was duty-bound to evaluate how the penalty served the public interest in safeguarding judicial integrity, and whether it maintained a proportionate balance with the individual's rights---In the present case, where the respondent's misconduct involved accepting substantial sums through multiple cheques in exchange for illegal favours, a fact supported by credible evidence and unconvincingly rebutted by the respondent, the public interest in accountability was overriding---The respondent's defense that the payments were merely loans was unsupported by evidence and contradicted by his own admissions during the personal hearing---When assessed through the lens of the structured proportionality framework, the Tribunal's order did not withstand scrutiny---Therefore, Supreme Court found that the tribunal's decision to substitute the major penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of two years of service failed the proportionality test---Impugned order passed by Tribunal was set aside and the major penalty of dismissal from service imposed by the competent authority was restored---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances.

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