๐ ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ-๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐๐ข๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ:
in a very recent judgment, where a court staff was alleged to have received bribe in his official capacity and the same had been proved, Honorable Justiceย Syed Mansoor Ali shah of the Supreme Court ruled that interference with private fundamental rights can only be allowed when there is a corresponding weighty public interest or right.
The said court staff was dismissed from service by the competent authority which order was appealed against in the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal converted the major penalty of dismissal from service into minor penalty of two years forfeiture without assigning any reason, let alone cogent.
The Court in this background highlighted the framework of the concept of proportionality and held that there are four requirements for proportionality to be valid and legal: Legitimacy, Suitability, Balancing and Necessity. The explanation to these concepts have been provided in the judgment. The Court concluded these concept into a single principle: “whether the interference with private rights is justified by a corresponding and weighty public interest.”
The Court at the end set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and held that when it was proved that the staff had received the bribe, the order of the Tribunal to convert major penalty into minor had no legitimacy: the first test of the proportionality failed. Hence, public trust in the judicial institution, which is a greater right, cannot be sacrificed in order to save the private right/s of the said court staff.
c.p._2987_l_2019
