Islamabad:
The Supreme Court has decided that proportionality should be used with discipline, care and sensitivity to context, especially in cases involving fundamental rights and human dignity.
In a service case that involved a sub -inspector, the pointed right emphasized that the principle of proportionality offers a structured framework for legal review of administrative actions.
The four-page judgment, author of justice, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, explained that the principle of proportionality provides a structured framework for legal review of administrative actions.
“Developed across different constitutional jurisdictions, it involves a four-step test: (i) The measure must pursue a legitimate goal; (ii) be suitable for achieving this goal; (iii) is necessary, since there is no less restrictive alternative alternative; and (IV) create a fair balance between the measure of individual rights and public interest.”
This court has recently introduced and adopted this four-step test to assess the legality and justice of administrative and disciplinary decisions. Such a framework ensures that any interference in rights is justified, necessary and legal, ”reads the order of the four-page.
The verdict was adopted in a service case in which Punjab Service Tribunal had partially allowed the appeal to a sub-inspector and changed the penalty from a two-step to a one-step reduction in pay through an order dated February 2, 2016.
According to the Court, while an investigation had been carried out, the prosecution “could not present a strip of evidence” to substantiate the claims. A division bench of the point of point, led by Justice Shah, heard the sub -inspector’s appeal against the court’s decision.
The order noted that despite these clear conclusions, the Court chose to reduce the penalty only rather than to free the county.
“It appears that the tribunal relied, albeit implicitly, on the principle of proportionality, finding the original penalty disproportionate to alleged misconduct. However, this Application Was Both Legally Flawed and Logically Inconsistently With Its Own Conclusion When No Misconduct Was Establls. The Tribunal Failed to Properly Exercise ITS Discretion Under Section 5 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, which empowers it to confirm, seen apart from, varies or changes introduced orders.
The court noted that legal interference with disciplinary sanctions is only justified when the penalty is “arbitrary, perverse or based on irrelevant considerations”. “When the court found that the claims were fully substantiated, the only legal result was to free up the petitioner.”
The judgment further elaborated that proportionality promotes a stable and systematic method of constitutional judgment.
