Summary: The first and foremost issue that arises for determination is whether respondent, having secured less than the qualifying marks, could claim any legal entitlement to appointment. It is settled law that no candidate can claim appointment as a matter of right without meeting the eligibility criteria prescribed by the recruiting authority. Recommendations made without evaluating the respondent's failure to qualify in the written examination do not confer any vested right. The act of making such recommendation, without the backing of merit, cannot override statutory rules or established recruitment procedures. It is a settled law that the High Court, while exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, is not expected to act as a selection or appointing authority so as to substitute its own assessment for that of the competent body.

Summary: (a) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ----Ss. 122(5A), 174(1), 174(3)—Retention of tax records—Scope of limitation—Pending proceedings—Applicability of proviso to S.174(3) Where tax proceedings are pending, taxpayer's statutory obligation to retain records under S.174(1) extends beyond six years by virtue of the proviso to S.174(3)—Petitioner department issued show-cause and passed re-assessment order within five-year window from deemed assessment for tax year 2010—Subsequent proceedings, including appeal and writ petition, remained pending thereafter—Held, Lahore High Court erred in granting blanket protection from production of record by relying solely on lapse of retention period—Explanation to S.174(3), inserted by Finance Act, 2010, explicitly extends record-keeping duty where any proceeding (assessment, appeal, revision, reference, petition, or prosecution) remains sub judice—Effect of limitation under S.174(1) diluted where proceedings initiated within time—Taxpayer’s failure to retain record amid ongoing litigation contravened statutory obligation. Cited Cases: • Maple Leaf Cement Factory Ltd. v. FBR (2016 PTD 2074) (distinguished) • Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Panther Sports and Rubber Industries (Pvt) Ltd. (2022 SCMR 1133) (relied) (b) Constitutional Petition—High Court's interference in audit proceedings—Judicial restraint High Court allowed writ petition against audit notice issued under S.122(5A), restraining tax authorities from demanding records—Held, while audit may proceed, taxpayer cannot avoid production of documents merely on lapse of six-year period if proceedings remain pending—Court below failed to appreciate scope and effect of proviso to S.174(3)—Such judicial intervention curtailed legitimate statutory functions of tax authorities. Disposition: Civil Petition converted into appeal and allowed to the extent of record production—Impugned order of High Court set aside partially—Department’s power to demand records during pending proceedings upheld.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----O. IX, Rr. 8 & 9—Dismissal of suit for non-prosecution—Restoration—Failure to show sufficient cause—Effect of framing of issues—Date of hearing Trial Court dismissed suit for non-prosecution when plaintiff failed to appear on 29.03.2023, despite case being fixed for evidence—Plaintiff filed application for restoration with condonation of delay citing illness of his father and absence of counsel—Application dismissed as unsatisfactory; appellate court upheld the order—Supreme Court affirmed, holding that once issues are framed, suit becomes ripe for hearing—Presence of interlocutory applications does not bar court from proceeding with suit if evidence stage has been reached—Held, restoration requires cogent explanation of absence; mere pendency of other applications is not valid ground—Distinction drawn between pre-issue appearance date and post-issue date of hearing—Dismissal upheld. Cited Case: • Abdul Latif v. Aqeel Ahmed (2006 SCMR 789) (relied) (b) Civil Procedure—Restoration of suit—Discretionary relief—Standards of explanation Belated restoration application not supported by credible justification—Presence of counsel in court on relevant day contradicted plea of unavoidable absence—Supreme Court observed that courts retain discretion to dismiss suit post-framing of issues if plaintiff fails to prosecute—No interference warranted where lower courts exercised discretion judiciously. Disposition: Leave to appeal declined—Petition dismissed—Order of dismissal for non-prosecution sustained due to lack of sufficient cause.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973: ----Art. 4 & Art. 199---Departmental proceedings---Right to be dealt with in accordance with law---Violation of earlier court direction---Scope---Where a court directs that objections raised in a writ petition be treated and decided accordingly by a competent authority, failure to address those objections renders the resulting decision void ab-initio---Held, respondent No.2’s order dated 30.01.2025 disregarded the binding directive of the High Court and failed to address petitioner’s objections, violating the right to be treated in accordance with law under Article 4---Resulting disciplinary proceedings were, therefore, unsustainable. Cited Cases: • All Public Universities BPS Teachers Assoc. v. Federation of Pakistan 2025 SCMR 322 • Muhammad Tariq Khan v. NBP 2024 CLD 1350 • Muhammad Akram Sohail v. Govt. of Punjab 2024 LHC 1923 (b) Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 2020: ----R. 3---Departmental proceedings---Scope of applicability---Misstatement in pleadings before tribunal---Whether constitutes misconduct---Petitioners proceeded against under Rule 3 based on alleged misstatement in service appeals filed before the FST---Held, acts in question pertained to pleadings prepared by counsel and not to petitioners’ official conduct---Misstatement, if any, could be addressed via S. 12(2), C.P.C. or S. 195, Cr.P.C. by the relevant forum, not through disciplinary proceedings---None of the four grounds listed under Rule 3 (inefficiency, misconduct, corruption, or subversion) attracted in the case---Disciplinary action initiated was thus ultra vires and void. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Tariq Khan v. NBP 2024 CLD 1350 • Samina Pathan v. Federation of Pakistan 2018 PLC (C.S.) Note 36 • Prof. Dr. Mahmood Baig v. Ministry of Science & Technology 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1451 (c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908: ----S. 12(2)---Remedy against misstatement or concealment in pleadings---Where allegations of misrepresentation or concealment arise from submissions before a judicial forum, appropriate remedy is application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. before the same forum---Failure of respondents to avail such remedy, despite recommendations, barred subsequent initiation of disciplinary proceedings on the same grounds. (d) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898: ----S. 195---False statement before tribunal---Proper course of action---Held, where a party alleges misrepresentation before a judicial forum, forum itself is empowered to refer matter for criminal action---Respondents’ failure to act under S.195 and resort to disciplinary measures instead was held legally untenable. (e) Constitutional Jurisdiction: ----Interference in disciplinary proceedings---Scope---While courts generally refrain from intervening in ongoing disciplinary processes, such jurisdiction may be exercised where proceedings are without legal foundation, mala fide, or intended to frustrate a final judicial order---In instant case, disciplinary proceedings were found to be a tool to delay implementation of a judgment upheld by the Supreme Court---Held, continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process. ----Cited Cases: • Fahad Faizan Khan v. Federation of Pakistan 2023 PLC (C.S.) Note 4 • Muhammad Tariq Khan v. NBP 2024 CLD 1350

Summary: Majority opinion-----(a) Companies Ordinance, 1984 (now Companies Act, 2017): ----S. 9, Ss. 290, 291 & 148 [now S. 121 of the Companies Act, 2017]--- Corporate proceedings---Summary adjudication---Scope---Jurisdiction of Company Judge---Disputed factual controversy---Shareholding dispute involving alleged forgery and trust claims---Validity---Dispute arose between two groups of shareholders in a private limited company regarding the transfer of 30% shares and the control over the company---Shah Group claimed the shares were held in trust for their benefit and that the transfer was in breach of two Shareholders’ Agreements---Khan Group denied the existence and validity of such agreements and contested the authenticity of board minutes and signatures---Held, where serious allegations of fraud and forgery are raised, summary procedure under S.9 does not oust the requirement of fair trial or exclude framing of issues and recording of evidence---Company Judge had erred by summarily adjudicating factual controversies without conducting a full evidentiary inquiry---Discretion exercised was found to be procedurally deficient and legally unsustainable---Appeals were allowed and parties were directed to pursue civil suits for adjudication of the disputed rights. ----Cited Cases: • Platinum Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Daewoo Corp. PLD 1999 SC 1 • Mian Javed Amir v. United Foam Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 2016 SCMR 213 (b) Companies Ordinance, 1984 (now Companies Act, 2017): ----S. 148 [now S. 121 of the Companies Act, 2017]--- Trusts over shares---Statutory bar---Private trust agreements---Effect---Scope---Claim that shares were held on trust for another party is legally unenforceable against the company---Register of members is conclusive of legal ownership---Held, company is neither obligated nor permitted to recognize any form of trust (express, implied or constructive) on its share register---Doctrine derives from longstanding English company law practice---Private trust arrangements may be enforceable inter se but have no bearing on corporate governance or legal ownership as recognized by the company---Claim of Shah Group regarding trust over 30% shares held by Alamgir Khan was legally untenable under Pakistani corporate law. ----Cited Cases: • Enviroco Ltd v. Farstad Supply A/S [2011] UKSC 16 • Bland and Anor v. Keegan [2024] EWCA Civ 934 • Perkins v. Mexican Santa Barbara Mining Co. (1890) 24 QBD 613 (c) Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (QSO): ----Art. 76--- Admissibility of secondary evidence---Photocopies and disputed documents---Failure to establish preconditions---Effect---Company Judge admitted photocopies of Shareholders’ Agreements despite serious contest regarding their authenticity---No credible or independent proof provided as to the loss or unavailability of the original documents as per Art.76---Held, strict statutory preconditions must be satisfied for secondary evidence to be admissible---Summary admission of photocopies without compliance with Art.76 constituted material irregularity and undermined the evidentiary foundation of the findings---Division Bench also erred in upholding such findings without judicial scrutiny. ----Cited Case: • Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major (R) Muzaffar Khan Malik PLD 2021 SC 715 (d) Judicial Discretion--- Exercise of discretion---Scope and limits---Documentary evidence challenged for forgery---Refusal to frame issues or record evidence---Effect---Held, judicial discretion must be exercised within legal boundaries and in consonance with procedural fairness---Where documents are seriously disputed, proper evidentiary inquiry is essential before accepting them as genuine---Company Judge erred in accepting Shareholders’ Agreements as valid in absence of original documents and without fulfilling evidentiary safeguards---Division Bench failed to cure this legal impropriety by affirming the findings summarily---Adjudication held to be legally flawed and appeals allowed. ----Disposition: Appeals allowed by majority (2-1, Malik J. dissenting); judgments of the High Court and Company Judge set aside; parties directed to pursue pending civil suits for adjudication of all issues afresh in accordance with law.

Summary: Minority opinion----(a) Companies Ordinance, 1984: ----Ss. 7, 9(3), 148, 290, 291 & Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 76--- Summary proceedings—Scope and limitations—Factual dispute relating to the transfer of 30% shareholding in a private limited company—Disputed Shareholders’ Agreements challenged as forged—Company Judge summarily adjudicated the matter under S.290 of the Companies Ordinance without framing issues or recording evidence—Held, while summary proceedings under S.9(3) of the Ordinance permit expeditious adjudication, they do not preclude factual inquiry where serious allegations of forgery and fabrication are involved—Jurisdiction of Company Judge under S.290 encompasses matters of oppression and mismanagement, which may inherently involve contested questions of fact—Failure to frame issues and receive evidence in such context rendered the proceedings procedurally deficient—Company Judge's discretion to adjudicate summarily without evidentiary safeguards was found to be in disregard of procedural fairness and due process—Impugned judgments set aside—Appeals allowed by majority. Platinum Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Daewoo Corp. PLD 1999 SC 1 Mian Javed Amir v. United Foam Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 2016 SCMR 213 (b) Companies Ordinance, 1984: ----S. 148 & Companies Act, 2017, S. 121--- Trusts over shares—Statutory prohibition—Claim that 30% shares were held in trust for benefit of third party—Held, S.148 of the Ordinance (now S.121 of Companies Act, 2017) prohibits a company from recognizing any trust over its shares—Such trusts, even if existing privately, are not binding on the company and cannot be entered in the register of members—Company Judge erred in entertaining and acting upon such a claim in derogation of the express bar of law. Enviroco Ltd v. Farstad Supply A/S [2011] UKSC 16 Bland v. Keegan [2024] EWCA Civ 934 Perkins v. Mexican Santa Barbara Mining Co. (1890) 24 QBD 613 (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: ----Art. 76--- Admissibility of secondary evidence—Scope—Shareholders’ Agreements disputed for authenticity—Photocopies produced as secondary evidence without justifying unavailability of originals—Held, conditions under Art.76 of the QSO not satisfied—No independent proof of loss or unavailability of originals provided—Admission of secondary evidence in absence of compliance with QSO constitutes material irregularity—High Court failed to rectify such illegality—Findings rendered on such basis not sustainable. Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major (R) Muzaffar Khan Malik PLD 2021 SC 715 (d) Judicial Discretion—Company proceedings—Evidentiary standards—Summary jurisdiction—Due process--- Exercise of judicial discretion—Scope—Company Judge treated disputed Shareholders’ Agreements as genuine despite specific challenge—No forensic examination, cross-examination, or evidentiary inquiry undertaken—Held, judicial discretion, while broad, must adhere to procedural and evidentiary rules—Failure to follow statutory evidentiary safeguards undermined the legitimacy of findings—Division Bench erred in affirming the decision without addressing foundational irregularities—Appeals allowed and matter remanded to civil court for adjudication on basis of full evidence. (e) Corporate Governance—Shareholding disputes—Oppression—Transparency—Remedy--- Corporate governance principles—Significance—Disputed transfer of shares leading to shift in company control—Held, corporate governance demands transparency, disclosure, and accountability—Adjudicatory processes involving governance issues must ensure fair trial rights and proper evidentiary review—Remedies under S.290 of the Companies Ordinance require meaningful inquiry into allegations of oppression and mismanagement—Failure to uphold such standards undermines shareholder rights and rule of law in corporate matters. ----Disposition: Appeals allowed by majority (2:1). Judgments of Company Judge dated 05.07.2012 and Division Bench dated 16.09.2019 set aside. Matter to be pursued before civil court.

Summary: (a) Review Petition – Delay of 204 days – No sufficient cause – Petition dismissed with costs: Where a petition for review is filed with an unexplained and unjustified delay, and the application for condonation of delay fails to establish “sufficient cause,” the Court is not obliged to entertain the review petition. —Held: The review petition, filed 204 days late, was dismissed as hopelessly time-barred and devoid of merit. [Cited: Syed Asif Raza v. PIA (PLD 2001 SC 182)] (b) Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 – Section 3(2) – Maintainability of intra-court appeal: An intra-court appeal before a High Court is not maintainable if the law governing the original proceedings provides for an alternate remedy of appeal, revision, or review. The availability of such remedy—irrespective of whether it was availed—is sufficient to bar the ICA. —Held: High Court rightly dismissed ICA; impugned order by Supreme Court upholding that dismissal required no review. (c) Abuse of process – Frivolous litigation by public bodies – Costs imposed: Frivolous and vexatious litigation by statutory bodies, especially without legal merit and with the intent of evading administrative accountability, constitutes an abuse of the judicial process. —Held: Filing of meritless petitions by public functionaries erodes judicial integrity and drains state resources. Exemplary costs of Rs. 100,000 imposed on the petitioner institution. [Cited: Javed Hameed v. Aman Ullah (2024 SCMR 89); Lutfullah Virk v. Muhammad Aslam Sheikh (PLD 2024 SC 887); Zakir Mehmood v. Secretary, MoD (2023 SCMR 960)] (d) Public sector litigation – Constitutional obligations and fiduciary role: Public functionaries litigate as custodians of law, not private adversaries. Petitions filed for bureaucratic self-preservation or fear of accountability reflect risk-averse governance and must be discouraged. —Held: Responsible litigation by state institutions is a constitutional obligation under Articles 4, 9, 10-A, and 14 of the Constitution. (e) Institutional accountability – Directions issued: —Direction issued: Internal inquiry to be conducted to identify officials responsible for filing frivolous petition. —Direction issued: Copy of order to be circulated to all Ministries and legal departments via Ministry of Law and Office of Attorney General. —Direction issued: Legal wings of public institutions to implement mechanisms curbing wasteful litigation and promoting merit-based decision-making. ----Disposition: Review petition dismissed as frivolous and time-barred. Exemplary costs of Rs. 100,000 imposed, to be deposited in a charitable institution under the Thirteenth Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within 15 days. Non-compliance to attract further judicial action.

Summary: (Against the order dated 09.07.2019 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 872 of 2019). (a) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999--- ----Rr.4 & 5---Disciplinary proceedings, initiation of---Major penalty of dismissal from service, imposing of---Employee of district court---Allegation of taking bribe---Service Tribunal converted major penalty into penalty of forfeiture of two years of service---Principle of proportionality---Applicability and scope---To reduce the penalty imposed the principle of proportionality requires a structured and reasoned application, balancing the severity of misconduct with the public interest---Facts of the case in brevity were that the respondent (employee) was serving as an Ahlmad (court record keeper) in the district court where he faced disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999, on charges of corruption and misconduct---The inquiry report found that he had received bribe in exchange for securing employment for the complainant’s relatives---The inquiry officer found him guilty and recommended dismissal from service, which penalty was enforced by the competent authority i.e. (District and Sessions Judge)---His departmental appeal remained undecided, leading him to file an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which found the charges proved but reduced the penalty to forfeiture of two years of service by stating that the dismissal was harsh---Question before the Supreme Court was as to “whether the Service Tribunal was justified in converting the major penalty of dismissal from service of the respondent into a lesser penalty of forfeiture of two years of service after having found that the charges of misconduct stood proved?”---Held: The tribunal without explicitly mentioning it, relied upon the principle of proportionality to reduce the penalty imposed on the respondent---In the present case, the charge of corruption against the respondent, serving as an Ahlmad (court record keeper), a role central to preserving the integrity and fairness of the judicial process, had been unequivocally proven---Significantly, the respondent did not challenge the findings of The Tribunal before the Supreme Court---The importance of an Ahlmad to the functioning of a fair and just judicial system could not be overstated---Supreme Court observed that; when court officials engage in misconduct, whether by accepting bribes or abusing their position, they do not merely tarnish individual cases; they strike at the very foundation of public confidence in the administration of justice; that judicial service is not merely a profession, it is a public trust---An Ahlmad proven to be involved in corruption could irreparably damage the administration of justice, undermining public confidence in the justice system by tainting the credibility of the decisions it delivered---In such a context, the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service was not only legitimate but necessary to protect public trust and uphold the rule of law---However, the tribunal reduced the penalty of the respondent to forfeiture of two years of service describing the original penalty as “grave and harsh” without offering any cogent reasons or legal justification---While the conclusion of the Tribunal reflected a compassionate approach, the application of the principle of proportionality could not rest on bare assertions or subjective impressions, rather, it was a structured principle that demanded cogent reasoning and a transparent, systematic evaluation of the nature, gravity, and context of the established misconduct, assessed against the penalty imposed---In the absence of a clear, structured, and transparent justification, the tribunal could not simply conclude that a penalty was excessive based on personal belief or an undefined sense of fairness, instead, the Tribunal was duty-bound to evaluate how the penalty served the public interest in safeguarding judicial integrity, and whether it maintained a proportionate balance with the individual’s rights---In the present case, where the respondent’s misconduct involved accepting substantial sums through multiple cheques in exchange for illegal favours, a fact supported by credible evidence and unconvincingly rebutted by the respondent, the public interest in accountability was overriding---The respondent’s defense that the payments were merely loans was unsupported by evidence and contradicted by his own admissions during the personal hearing---When assessed through the lens of the structured proportionality framework, the Tribunal’s order did not withstand scrutiny---Therefore, Supreme Court found that the tribunal’s decision to substitute the major penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of two years of service failed the proportionality test---Impugned order passed by Tribunal was set aside and the major penalty of dismissal from service imposed by the competent authority was restored---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances. Sakhib Zar v. Messrs K Electric Limited 2024 SCMR 1722 rel. (b) Civil service--- ----Disciplinary proceedings---Penalty---Principle of proportionality---Essence, applicability and scope---At its core, the principle of proportionality requires that when an administrative authority exercises discretionary power, it must strike a fair balance between the adverse effects of its decision on the rights, liberties, or interests of individuals and the legitimate aim or purpose the decision seeks to achieve---A more refined version of the principle of proportionality analysis adopts a structured, four-stage test, requiring courts to address the following questions to determine whether an impugned measure is constitutionally or legally justifiable, which includes: (i) Legitimacy: Does the action pursue a legitimate objective recognized by law? (ii) Suitability (Rational Connection): Is the measure capable of achieving that objective, i.e., is there a rational nexus between the means employed and the aim pursued? (iii) Necessity: Could the same objective have been achieved through a less restrictive or less onerous alternative? and (iv) Proportionality stricto sensu (Balancing): Does the measure maintain a fair balance between the severity of its impact on the individual and the importance of the public interest it serves?---Moreover, Articles 4, 14 and 25 of the Constitution collectively impose a duty upon the courts to ensure that executive or disciplinary measures not only pursue lawful objectives but do so in a manner that is just, fair, and proportionate---In disciplinary jurisprudence, proportionality maintains a delicate balance between public and private rights---While civil servants are entitled to procedural fairness and protection from arbitrary sanctions, these rights must be balanced against the compelling public interest in maintaining the integrity and accountability of public institutions---The principle of proportionality at its most functional level ultimately hinges on a singular, decisive question: whether the interference with private rights is justified by a corresponding and weighty public interest---This balancing offers a structured framework for assessing the sustainability of disciplinary penalties---The penalty imposed must be evaluated not in isolation, but in relation to the degree of harm caused to the public interest and the severity of intrusion upon the private rights of the officer---A constitutionally and administratively sustainable penalty is one that serves a legitimate public objective without inflicting excessive or unnecessary harm upon individual rights---The test is not merely whether discipline is warranted, but whether the measure adopted strikes a fair and reasonable equilibrium between the legitimate aims of the institution and the human dignity of the individual---Accordingly, the principle of proportionality, in its clearest form may be said to rest on the following standard: The action taken achieves a necessary public goal without causing disproportionate harm to private interest---Furthermore, while proportionality strengthens constitutional adjudication when properly employed, its misuse can undermine the very values it seeks to uphold---A disproportionate decision may also violate the rule of law. De Freitas v. Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture [1999] AC 69; R(Daly) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532; R v. Shayler [2003] 1 AC 247; Huang v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 AC 167; Bank Mellat v. HM Treasury (No.2) [2013] UKSC 39 (per Lord Sumption) and D.G. Cement v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2013 Lahore 693 ref. Khalid Masood Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Sher Aman, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent. Assisted by: Umer A. Ranjha, Judicial Law Clerk, Supreme Court of Pakistan. Date of hearing: 7th May, 2025.

Summary: (Against the order dated 09.07.2019 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 872 of 2019). (a) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999--- ----Rr.4 & 5---Disciplinary proceedings, initiation of---Major penalty of dismissal from service, imposing of---Employee of district court---Allegation of taking bribe---Service Tribunal converted major penalty into penalty of forfeiture of two years of service---Principle of proportionality---Applicability and scope---To reduce the penalty imposed the principle of proportionality requires a structured and reasoned application, balancing the severity of misconduct with the public interest---Facts of the case in brevity were that the respondent (employee) was serving as an Ahlmad (court record keeper) in the district court where he faced disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999, on charges of corruption and misconduct---The inquiry report found that he had received bribe in exchange for securing employment for the complainant’s relatives---The inquiry officer found him guilty and recommended dismissal from service, which penalty was enforced by the competent authority i.e. (District and Sessions Judge)---His departmental appeal remained undecided, leading him to file an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which found the charges proved but reduced the penalty to forfeiture of two years of service by stating that the dismissal was harsh---Question before the Supreme Court was as to “whether the Service Tribunal was justified in converting the major penalty of dismissal from service of the respondent into a lesser penalty of forfeiture of two years of service after having found that the charges of misconduct stood proved?”---Held: The tribunal without explicitly mentioning it, relied upon the principle of proportionality to reduce the penalty imposed on the respondent---In the present case, the charge of corruption against the respondent, serving as an Ahlmad (court record keeper), a role central to preserving the integrity and fairness of the judicial process, had been unequivocally proven---Significantly, the respondent did not challenge the findings of The Tribunal before the Supreme Court---The importance of an Ahlmad to the functioning of a fair and just judicial system could not be overstated---Supreme Court observed that; when court officials engage in misconduct, whether by accepting bribes or abusing their position, they do not merely tarnish individual cases; they strike at the very foundation of public confidence in the administration of justice; that judicial service is not merely a profession, it is a public trust---An Ahlmad proven to be involved in corruption could irreparably damage the administration of justice, undermining public confidence in the justice system by tainting the credibility of the decisions it delivered---In such a context, the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service was not only legitimate but necessary to protect public trust and uphold the rule of law---However, the tribunal reduced the penalty of the respondent to forfeiture of two years of service describing the original penalty as “grave and harsh” without offering any cogent reasons or legal justification---While the conclusion of the Tribunal reflected a compassionate approach, the application of the principle of proportionality could not rest on bare assertions or subjective impressions, rather, it was a structured principle that demanded cogent reasoning and a transparent, systematic evaluation of the nature, gravity, and context of the established misconduct, assessed against the penalty imposed---In the absence of a clear, structured, and transparent justification, the tribunal could not simply conclude that a penalty was excessive based on personal belief or an undefined sense of fairness, instead, the Tribunal was duty-bound to evaluate how the penalty served the public interest in safeguarding judicial integrity, and whether it maintained a proportionate balance with the individual’s rights---In the present case, where the respondent’s misconduct involved accepting substantial sums through multiple cheques in exchange for illegal favours, a fact supported by credible evidence and unconvincingly rebutted by the respondent, the public interest in accountability was overriding---The respondent’s defense that the payments were merely loans was unsupported by evidence and contradicted by his own admissions during the personal hearing---When assessed through the lens of the structured proportionality framework, the Tribunal’s order did not withstand scrutiny---Therefore, Supreme Court found that the tribunal’s decision to substitute the major penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of two years of service failed the proportionality test---Impugned order passed by Tribunal was set aside and the major penalty of dismissal from service imposed by the competent authority was restored---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances. Sakhib Zar v. Messrs K Electric Limited 2024 SCMR 1722 rel. (b) Civil service--- ----Disciplinary proceedings---Penalty---Principle of proportionality---Essence, applicability and scope---At its core, the principle of proportionality requires that when an administrative authority exercises discretionary power, it must strike a fair balance between the adverse effects of its decision on the rights, liberties, or interests of individuals and the legitimate aim or purpose the decision seeks to achieve---A more refined version of the principle of proportionality analysis adopts a structured, four-stage test, requiring courts to address the following questions to determine whether an impugned measure is constitutionally or legally justifiable, which includes: (i) Legitimacy: Does the action pursue a legitimate objective recognized by law? (ii) Suitability (Rational Connection): Is the measure capable of achieving that objective, i.e., is there a rational nexus between the means employed and the aim pursued? (iii) Necessity: Could the same objective have been achieved through a less restrictive or less onerous alternative? and (iv) Proportionality stricto sensu (Balancing): Does the measure maintain a fair balance between the severity of its impact on the individual and the importance of the public interest it serves?---Moreover, Articles 4, 14 and 25 of the Constitution collectively impose a duty upon the courts to ensure that executive or disciplinary measures not only pursue lawful objectives but do so in a manner that is just, fair, and proportionate---In disciplinary jurisprudence, proportionality maintains a delicate balance between public and private rights---While civil servants are entitled to procedural fairness and protection from arbitrary sanctions, these rights must be balanced against the compelling public interest in maintaining the integrity and accountability of public institutions---The principle of proportionality at its most functional level ultimately hinges on a singular, decisive question: whether the interference with private rights is justified by a corresponding and weighty public interest---This balancing offers a structured framework for assessing the sustainability of disciplinary penalties---The penalty imposed must be evaluated not in isolation, but in relation to the degree of harm caused to the public interest and the severity of intrusion upon the private rights of the officer---A constitutionally and administratively sustainable penalty is one that serves a legitimate public objective without inflicting excessive or unnecessary harm upon individual rights---The test is not merely whether discipline is warranted, but whether the measure adopted strikes a fair and reasonable equilibrium between the legitimate aims of the institution and the human dignity of the individual---Accordingly, the principle of proportionality, in its clearest form may be said to rest on the following standard: The action taken achieves a necessary public goal without causing disproportionate harm to private interest---Furthermore, while proportionality strengthens constitutional adjudication when properly employed, its misuse can undermine the very values it seeks to uphold---A disproportionate decision may also violate the rule of law. De Freitas v. Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture [1999] AC 69; R(Daly) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532; R v. Shayler [2003] 1 AC 247; Huang v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 AC 167; Bank Mellat v. HM Treasury (No.2) [2013] UKSC 39 (per Lord Sumption) and D.G. Cement v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2013 Lahore 693 ref. Khalid Masood Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Sher Aman, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent. Assisted by: Umer A. Ranjha, Judicial Law Clerk, Supreme Court of Pakistan. Date of hearing: 7th May, 2025.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S.9(1), Sr.Nos.(3)(c) & (e)---Possession of narcotic substances--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered substance to the laboratory not proved---Chain of custody of contraband doubtful---Prosecution case was that 2824-grams chars in three packets and 6154-grams opium in seven packets were recovered from the possession of accused-appellant---In the instant case, the Investigating Officer did not mention anywhere in his statement that when he handed over the case property to Moharrer of the police station for safe custody, any entry was made in Register No.XIX or not---Similarly, the Moharrer of the police station did not utter a single word that any entry was made regarding keeping of the case property i.e. 20 sealed parcels i.e. 14 of opium and six of the charas along with black coloured purse, travelling bag of black colour, two towels as well as one lady's suit of green colour and a mobile phone in Register No.XIX prior to keeping the same in Malkhana---Neither the Investigating Officer nor the Moharrer of the police station produced theattested copy of Register No.XIX or attested copy of any road certificate before the Court---Similarly neither the Moharrer nor the Investigating Officer uttered a single word that any such entry was made in Register No.XIX or in any Roznamcha about handing and taking over of the case property on 12.04.2023 for its transmission to Saddar Malkhana intact---Similarly, neither the Moharrer nor the Investigating Officer uttered any word about handing over of the sample parcels i.e. seven sealed parcels said to contain opium and three sealed parcels said to contain charas to Investigating Officer for their transmission to Forensic Science Agency intact---Such non-mentioning of handing and taking over of the case property as well as sample parcels in relevant Register had made the whole prosecution case doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Jeehand v. The State through Prosecutor General Baluchistan 2025 SCMR 923 rel. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S.9(1), Sr.Nos.(3)(c) & (e)---Possession of narcotic substances--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Road certificate not procedure---Prosecution case was that 2824-grams chars in three packets and 6154-grams opium in seven packets were recovered from the possession of accused-appellant---Neither the Investigating Officer nor Moharrer of the police station or the complainant uttered a single word about road certificate issued by the Investigating Officer from the DPO office at the time of transmission of sample parcels to office of Forensic Science Agency--- Non-mentioning of any road certificate in statements as well as non-production of any such road certificate has made the prosecution case further dubious and doubtful---Complaint had been abruptly concluded without mentioning the venue of its preparation, the time of its conclusion and no fact about the sending of the said complaint to the police station through Police Constable was mentioned---Non-mentioning of said particulars at the bottom of complaint further made the whole prosecution case dubious so far as any recovery of narcotics from the possession of the present appellant at a chowk was concerned---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Administration of justice--- ----When law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same must be done accordingly---If the prescribed procedure was not followed, it would be presumed that the same had not been done in accordance with law. Ammad Yousaf v. The State and another PLD 2024 SC 273 rel. (d) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Slightest circumstance would be sufficient to extend benefit of doubt in favour of accused. Ahmed Ali and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 781 rel. Syed Zeeshan Haider for Appellant. Rao Muhammad Riaz Khan, DPG with Khadim ASI for the State. Date of hearing: 7th May, 2025.