The Supreme Court in Pakistan has decided that courts should exercise legal restraint and avoid unnecessary interference while assessing service cases.

“Courts must exercise legal restraint and avoid unnecessary interference with the executive estimates. Although judicial review is necessary to prevent abuse of power, courts must respect the executive branch’s autonomy by managing his employees,” reads a seven-page written judgment written by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.

“Legal intervention should be limited to cases involving clear illegality, arbitrariness or Mala Fide intention. Courts must balance individual rights with the greater public interest. While it is imperative to protect employees from unreasonable treatment, legal decisions should not undermine the broader targets for maintaining an effective and disciplined civil service.

The verdict came in the case of Muhammad Nasir Ismail, a former employee of the board of intermediate and secondary education, rawalpindi. Ismail was awarded the largest penalty for mandatory retirement of the competent authority for remaining absence from duty for 48 days.

He filed an appeal to the appeal authority that was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner attacked the intended order by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of Lahore High Court, Lahore, through a written petition that was also rejected.

The court notes that sanctions under the Services Act serve several purposes to ensure that officials comply with ethical and professional standards. One of their primary functions is to maintain discipline and accountability. Officials have positions for public confidence, and disciplinary measures discourage mismatches while strengthening the importance of ethical behavior. Without accountability, the credibility and effectiveness of the official administration could be compromised seriously. Another key goal of enforcing sanctions is to prevent abuse of power. In the absence of strict disciplinary mechanisms, bureaucrats may abuse their authority, leading to corruption, inefficiency and injustice. Such mismatch not only erodes public confidence in institutions, but also interferes with governance and delivery of services.

The judgment states that we apply the principle of proportionality on the present case, and we note that the petitioner remained absent from duty II all 48 days. Impressing a greater penalty for mandatory retirement, in our considered perception, does not meet the test of proportionality as it does not establish a rational nexus between mismatch and the severity of the penalty or consider less restrictive alternatives.

The court has set aside the judgment to the extent of the sentence imposed. However, the annual reintroduction is subject to a new decision by the competent authority. “We therefore instruct the competent authority, ie President Bise, RawalPindi, to revise the case’s case in the light of the principles described above and impose a penalty that complies with gravity. Determine the case through a speaking order within a period of 07 days.