Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 4356 2025 SLD 4356 = 2025 PLC 669

Service Appeal No.26 of 2013 and connected Service Appeal No.19 of 2010, decided on 17th January, 2025.
Before Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, Chairman, Abid Husain Chattha and Rasaal Hasan Syed, Members
   Ch. Zubair Ahmad Farooq and Ch. Muhammad Tariq-ur-Rehman for Appellant.       Zawar Ahmad Sheikh and Zubda tul Hussain for
Respondent.       Date of hearing: 17th January, 2025.

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZAHID, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE

VERSUS

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE through Registrar

Law: Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991)

Section: 5

 

Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991)---

----S. 5---Judicial officer---Service appeal---Allegation of corruption and ill-repute---Recording of adverse remarks---Penalty of removal from service---Long service---Mitigating circumstances---Quantum of punishment---Principle of proportionality---Conversion of penalty---P.W. 4 during his examination-in-chief stated that appellant did not receive even a penny and during his cross-examination he denied his signature on the complaint and disowned its contents---P.W.5 during his cross-examination stated that he had not personally paid any illegal gratification to the appellant and could not identify the official, who allegedly demanded the illegal gratification---Charge of receiving illegal gratification had not been proved against the appellant, however, allegations of corruption and ill-repute remained on record---Owing to mitigating circumstances and analyzing different factors the penalty of removal from service was converted into compulsory retirement---Courts have consistently emphasized the importance of considering the employee's length of service, the nature of the offence and the context surrounding the misconduct---A fair and just approach to disciplinary actions is essential in maintaining morale and ensuring that penalties are proportionate to the offences committed---Penalty of removal from service was not proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved against the appellant, thus, the same was converted into compulsory retirement---Appeal was partly allowed, in circumstances.

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register