2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(Against the judgment dated 02.02.2016 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 2308 of 2015).

S.5

Punjab Service Tribunal

Powers

Principle of proportionality

Scope

Petitioner (Sub-Inspector) was proceeded against on allegations pertaining to faulty investigation by him, and was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service; on departmental appeal, the penalty was reduced to a two-stage reduction in pay while he was reinstated into service

Petitioner approached the Punjab Service Tribunal ('Tribunal'), seeking reinstatement with effect from the date of his original dismissal, along with all consequential benefits, however, the Tribunal modified the penalty from a two-stage to a one-stage reduction in pay('impugned order')

Validity

Record revealed that, through impugned order, the Tribunal found that although an investigation had been conducted, yet the prosecution failed to produce even a shred of evidence to substantiate the allegations

Despite said categorical findings, the Tribunal opted merely to reduce the penalty, rather than exonerate the petitioner

It appeared 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

Tribunal failed to properly exercise its discretion under Section 5 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, which empowered 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

Judicial interference with disciplinary penalties is only justified where the penalty 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

Proportionality promotes a stable and systematic method of constitutional adjudication

Courts employing said approach are expected to articulate clearly the reasoning behind their decisions at each stage of the analysis thereby enhancing transparency, accountability, and legitimacy in judicial reasoning

Proportionality must, therefore, be applied with discipline, care, and sensitivity to context, particularly where fundamental rights and human dignity are at stake

Thus, the impugned order was untenable in both law and fact

Once the Tribunal determined that the charges were unsubstantiated, the only legally viable course was to exonerate the petitioner

The imposition of any penalty, absent proven misconduct, constitutes a violation of natural justice and results in a manifest miscarriage of justice

The Tribunal's decision, being internally inconsistent and contrary to constitutional norms, was accordingly set aside

The petitioner stood exonerated and was directed to be reinstated in service from the date of his original dismissal, with all consequential benefits

Accordingly, petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed. Deputy Postmaster General v. Habib Ahmed 2021 PLC (C.S.) 531; Secretary, Government of Punjab v. Khalid Hussain Hamdani 2013 SCMR 817; Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services, D.G. Khan v. Nadeem Raza 2023 SCMR 803; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Nargis Jamal 2022 SCMR 2114; Postmaster General Sindh, Karachi v. Syed Farhan 2022 SCMR 1154 and T Alexander Aleinikoff, 'Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing' (1987) 96 Yale LJ 943 ref.

S. 5

Punjab Service Tribunal

Powers

Disciplinary actions

Principle of proportionality, applicability of

Four-step test

Scope

Petitioner (Sub-Inspector) was proceeded against on allegations pertaining to faulty investigation by him, and was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service; on departmental appeal, the penalty was reduced to a two-stage reduction in pay while he was reinstated into service

Petitioner approached the Punjab Service Tribunal ('Tribunal'), seeking reinstatement with effect from the date of his original dismissal, along with all consequential benefits, however , the Tribunal modified the penalty from a two-stage to a one-stage reduction in pay ('impugned order')

Validity

Record revealed that, through impugned order , the Tribunal found that although an investigation had been conducted, yet the prosecution failed to produce even a shred of evidence to substantiate the allegations

The principle of proportionality provides a structured framework for judicial review of administrative actions ; 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

Adopting said four-stage test to assess the legality and fairness of administrative and disciplinary decisions, ensures that any interference with rights is justified, necessary, and lawful

In the present case, the Tribunal's own findings confirmed that there was no credible evidence, documentary or oral, linking the petitioner to the alleged misconduct

No regular inquiry was held, and the principles of natural justice were violated

In such circumstances, the very first limb of the proportionality test i.e., legitimacy failed

Without proven misconduct, there can be no legitimate objective warranting disciplinary action

Any penalty, however minor, is thus disproportionate by default

The absence of evidence removes the legal basis for any sanction

Thus, the impugned order was untenable in both law and fact

Once the Tribunal determined that the charges were unsubstantiated, the only legally viable course was to exonerate the petitioner

The imposition of any penalty, absent proven misconduct, constitutes a violation of natural justice and results in a manifest miscarriage of justice

The Tribunal's decision, being internally inconsistent and contrary to constitutional norms, was accordingly set aside

The petitioner stood exonerated and was directed to be reinstated in service from the date of his original dismissal, with all consequential benefits

Accordingly, petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed. HP Wade, CR Forsyth and the Rt Hon Lord Woolf, De Smith's Judicial Review 8th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2018; Muhammad Nasir Ismail v. Government of Punjab 2025 SCMR 708; Shahida Siddiqa v. Allied Bank Limited 2024 SCMR 92; Pervaiz Hussain Shah v. Government of Punjab 2024 SCMR 309; Ijaz Badshah v. Government of Pakistan 2023 SCMR 407; Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services v. Nadeem Raza 2023 SCMR 803; Muhammad Sharif v. Inspector General of Police, Lahore 2021 PLC (C.S.) 762; Muhammad Iqbal Khan Noori v. NAB PLD 2021 SC 916; Sabir Iqbal v. Cantonment Board PLD 2019 SC 189; De Freitas v. Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture [1999] 1 AC 69; R(Daly) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532; R v. Shayler [2003] 1 AC 247; Huang v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 AC 167; Bank Mellat v. HM Treasury (No.2) [2013] UKSC 39; District and Sessions Judge (Authority), Jhang v. Ghulam Shabbir C.P.L.A. No. 2987-L of 2019; Aamir Akbar v. Additional Superintendent of Police, Bahawalpur 2025 SCMR 632; Sakhib Zar v. K-Electric Limited 2024 SCMR 1722 and Raja Muhammad Shahid v. Inspector General of Police 2023 SCMR 1135 ref.

Arts. 4, 14 & 25

Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 5

Punjab Service Tribunal

Powers

Treatment in accordance with law

Human dignity

Equality before the law

Scope

Petitioner (Sub-Inspector) was proceeded against on allegations pertaining to faulty investigation by him, and was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service; on departmental appeal, the penalty was reduced to a two-stage reduction in pay while he was reinstated into service

Petitioner approached the Punjab Service Tribunal ('Tribunal'), seeking reinstatement with effect from the date of his original dismissal, along with all consequential benefits, however, the Tribunal modified the penalty from a two-stage to a one-stage reduction in pay ('impugned order')

Validity

Articles 4, 14 and 25 of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to be treated in accordance with law, human dignity, and equality before the law, require all forums, including Tribunals, to ensure that disciplinary measures are not only lawful but also fair and just

In the present case, once the Tribunal concluded that the disciplinary process was procedurally flawed and unsupported by evidence, it was legally and constitutionally bound to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits

Failure of the Tribunal to do so reflected a fundamental error of law, a misapplication of the principle of proportionality, and a disregard for the constitutional principles of fairness and due process

Endeavouring to "balance" unproven misconduct with the imposition of a continuing penalty is both illogical and legally untenable

Given the manifestly unjust disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was entitled to complete exoneration and full restitution

It is not the role of the Tribunal to engage in an exercise of mercy or compromise where the foundational basis of penal action is wholly unsubstantiated

Fairness demands rectification, not calibration, in the face of injustice

Thus, the impugned order was untenable in both law and fact

Once the Tribunal determined that the charges were unsubstantiated, the only legally viable course was to exonerate the petitioner

The imposition of any penalty, absent proven misconduct, constitutes a violation of natural justice and results in a manifest miscarriage of justice

The Tribunal's decision, being internally inconsistent and contrary to constitutional norms, was accordingly set aside

The petitioner stood exonerated and was directed to be reinstated in service from the date of his original dismissal, with all consequential benefits

Accordingly, petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed. Assisted by Umer A. Ranjha, Judicial Law Clerk, Supreme Court of Pakistan.