ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that courts must exercise judicial restraint and avoid undue interference while adjudicating service matters.
“Courts must exercise judicial restraint and avoid undue interference with executive discretion. While judicial review is necessary to prevent abuse of power, courts must respect the autonomy of the executive branch in managing its employees,” reads a seven-page written judgement authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.
“Judicial intervention should be limited to cases involving clear illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fide intent. Courts must balance individual rights with the larger public interest. While it is imperative to protect employees from unfair treatment, judicial decisions should not undermine the broader objectives of maintaining an efficient and disciplined civil service. A well-functioning disciplinary system is essential for governance, and courts must ensure that their rulings do not compromise the effectiveness of administrative oversight,” states the judgement.
The judgement came in a case of Muhammad Nasir Ismail, a former employee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi. Ismail was awarded the major penalty of compulsory retirement by the competent authority for remained absence from duty for 48 days.
He filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner assailed the impugned order by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through a writ petition, which was also dismissed.
The court notes that penalties under service laws serve multiple purposes in ensuring that civil servants adhere to ethical and professional standards. One of their primary functions is maintaining discipline and accountability. Civil servants hold positions of public trust, and disciplinary measures deter misconduct while reinforcing the importance of ethical conduct. Without accountability, the credibility and efficiency of the civil service could be severely compromised. Another key objective of enforcing penalties is to prevent the abuse of power. In the absence of strict disciplinary mechanisms, bureaucrats may misuse their authority, leading to corruption, inefficiency, and injustice. Such misconduct not only erodes public trust in institutions but also disrupts governance and service delivery.
The judgement states that applying the principle of proportionality to the present case, we note that the petitioner remained absent from duty for a total of 48 days. The imposition of a major penalty of compulsory retirement, in our considered view, fails to meet the test of proportionality, as it neither establishes a rational nexus between the misconduct and the severity of the penalty nor considers less restrictive alternatives.
The court has set aside the judgment to the extent of the penalty imposed. However, the petitioner’s reinstatement shall be subject to a fresh determination by the competent authority. “We, therefore, direct the competent authority, i.e., chairman BISE, Rawalpindi, to revisit the petitioner’s case in light of the principles outlined above and impose a penalty commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. To facilitate the expeditious disposal of this matter, let the petitioner appear before the competent authority at 11am on 19.03.2025, who, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, shall decide the matter through a speaking order within a period of 07 days. A compliance report shall be submitted for the information of this Court. Office shall dispatch a copy of this order to the Competent Authority,” says the judgement.
