DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (AUTHORITY), JHANG vs GHULAM SHABBIR — 2026 SCMR 357 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. The respondent, while serving as an Ahlmad (Court Record Keeper) in the District Court, faced disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999, on allegations of corruption and misconduct. The inquiry established that he had received illegal gratification in exchange for securing employment for the complainant's relatives. The Inquiry Officer found the charges fully proved and recommended dismissal from service, which recommendation was accepted by the competent authority, namely the District and Sessions Judge. The respondent's departmental appeal remained undecided, whereupon he approached the Punjab Service Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the findings of misconduct but reduced the penalty from dismissal to forfeiture of two years' service merely on the ground that dismissal was harsh. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had effectively invoked the principle of proportionality without expressly applying the legal test governing that doctrine. Reduction of a penalty on the basis of proportionality requires a structured and reasoned assessment balancing the gravity of misconduct with the competing public interest. The Court observed that the office of an Ahlmad occupies a central position in preserving the integrity and fairness of judicial proceedings. Corruption by such an official does not merely affect an individual litigant but strikes at the very foundation of public confidence in the administration of justice. Judicial service is a public trust and any proven act of corruption seriously undermines the credibility of the justice system. The respondent did not challenge before the Supreme Court the Tribunal's finding that the allegations of corruption stood proved. The evidence established that the respondent had received substantial amounts through multiple cheques in exchange for illegal favours. His explanation that the payments were merely loans was unsupported by evidence and was inconsistent with his own admissions during the personal hearing. The Tribunal reduced the punishment merely by describing dismissal as grave and harsh without assigning any cogent legal reasons. The principle of proportionality cannot rest upon subjective notions of fairness. It requires a structured evaluation of the seriousness of misconduct, the necessity of the punishment and the overriding public interest sought to be protected. The Supreme Court held that where proven corruption directly affects the integrity of the judicial system, dismissal from service is both legitimate and necessary. The Tribunal failed to undertake the required proportionality analysis and therefore its order could not be sustained. The order of the Punjab Service Tribunal was set aside, the penalty of dismissal imposed by the competent authority was restored, the petition was converted into an appeal and the appeal was allowed.

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (AUTHORITY), JHANG vs GHULAM SHABBIR — 2026 SCMR 357 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR