Islamabad:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled that the courts should exercise a judicial restriction and avoid indulating interference while exercising service issues.
“The courts must exercise a judicial reservoir and avoid an undue interference in the discretionary power of the leaders. Although judicial control is necessary to prevent the abuse of power, the courts must respect the autonomy of the executive power of the management of its employees”, reads a written judgment of seven pages written by judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.
“Judicial intervention should be limited to cases involving a clear illegality, an arbitrariness or an intention of Mala. of administrative surveillance, “said the judgment.
The judgment came in a case of Muhammad Nasir Ismail, former employee of the board of directors of intermediate and secondary education, Rawalpindi. Ismail received the major sanction of compulsory retirement by the competent authority to have remained absence of its functions for 48 days.
He appealed before the Appeal Authority, which was rejected. Subsequently, the petitioner assaulted the attacked order by invoking the constitutional competence of the High Court of Lahore, Lahore, through a brief request, which was also rejected.
The court notes that the sanctions under the laws on services serve multiple ends to ensure that civil servants comply with ethical and professional standards. One of their main functions is to maintain discipline and responsibility. Officials occupy public confidence positions and disciplinary measures dissuade the fault while strengthening the importance of ethical conduct. Without responsibility, the credibility and efficiency of the public service could be seriously compromised. Another key objective of applying sanctions is to prevent the abuse of power. In the absence of strict disciplinary mechanisms, bureaucrats can abuse their authority, leading to corruption, ineffectiveness and injustice. Such misconduct erodes not only public confidence in institutions but also disrupts governance and service.
The judgment stipulates that the application of the principle of proportionality to this case, we note that the petitioner has remained absent from duty for a total of 48 days. The imposition of a major compulsory retirement penalty, in our opinion considered, does not respond to the proportionality test, because it does not establish a rational link between the misconduct and the severity of the penalty or considers less restrictive alternatives.
The court canceled the judgment to the measure of the imposed sanction. However, the reintegration of the petitioner will be subject to a new determination of the competent authority. “We therefore order that the competent authority, that is to say, the Bise, Rawalpindi, to review the case of the petitioner in the light of the principles described above and impose a penalty proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. The case thanks to a speaking order within 07 days.
