Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLD 3520 2026 SLG 3520 = 2026 SCP 194
Supreme Court of Pakistan
CPLA Nos.642-L, 1606 & 2172 of 2025 Against judgments dated 17.01.2025 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Service Appeals No.26 of 2013 and 19 of 2010.
Presented By: Mr. Justice Shahid Waheed Mr. Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui
Ch. Muhammad Amin Javed, ASC Sh. Mehmood Ahmed, AOR (in CPLA#642-L/2025) Nemo (in CPLA#1606 & 2172/2025)

Lahore High Court, Lahore, through its Registrar (in CPLA#642-L/2025) Muhammad Afzal Zahid (in CPLA#1606 & 2172/2025) …Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

Muhammad Afzal Zahid (in CPLA#642-L/2025) Lahore High Court, Lahore, through its Registrar (in CPLA#1606 & 2172/2025) …Respondent(s)

Law:

Section:

Summary: The Court considered three consolidated leave petitions concerning a judicial officer who, while not proved to have accepted illegal gratification, was found to have a bad reputation that undermined judicial integrity; the Tribunal had reduced the competent authority’s penalty of removal to compulsory retirement, but this Court held that a judge’s reputation must be beyond reproach, that compulsory retirement is not an adequate substitute where a judge’s integrity (or its appearance) is fatally damaged, and therefore restored the penalty of removal while dismissing the officer’s petitions to reinstate or expunge adverse remarks. Core points: Three leave petitions arising from two consolidated service appeals were heard together. Inquiry found insufficient evidence of receiving illegal gratification but upheld findings of bad reputation and misconduct. The Tribunal substituted removal with compulsory retirement; the High Court and officer both appealed. Court held that judges’ integrity requires a higher standard than civil servants; reputation must be “beyond reproach.” Islamic principles and classical jurists were cited to reinforce that public office is a trust (amāna) and that a judge who loses ‘adala’ must be removed. Compulsory retirement is distinct from removal; allowing retirement with benefits would undermine the purpose of disciplining a judge of bad repute. Because the inquiry was properly conducted and findings on reputation were supported by evidence, the Court declined to disturb them. The Court restored the penalty of removal from service, converted the High Court’s CPLA into an appeal and partly allowed it, and dismissed the judicial officer’s leave petitions (including the PER-expunction petition, which was also time-barred). No order as to costs. Law and Section: Row Law / Legal Principle Section / Source / Authority Explanation / Application in the Judgment 1 Higher standard of integrity for judges Judicial service jurisprudence (Inherent judicial standards) A judge must be beyond reproach; appearance of integrity is essential for public confidence. 2 Proportionality…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register