ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court delivered a landmark verdict on Friday, asserting that judges with compromised reputations cannot continue to serve on the bench. The court emphasized that judicial integrity is absolute and non-negotiable, stating that even without direct evidence of bribery, officials with tainted reputations must be removed.
The decision was made by a three-member bench consisting of Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Shafi Siddiqui. They overturned a service tribunal’s order that had softened the dismissal of a lower-court judge, thereby reinstating the original termination issued by the Lahore High Court against an Additional District and Sessions Judge who was previously posted in Mailsi.
In the nine-page judgment, Justice Shahid Waheed underscored the necessity for judges to maintain an unblemished reputation to uphold public confidence in the justice system. The court stated, “A judge’s integrity cannot be partial; it must be absolute or it does not exist at all.” It further warned that allowing a judge known for corruption to retire with benefits sends a dangerous message that integrity can be compromised. Removing such an official was likened to excising a tumor from the judiciary’s body.
The apex court highlighted that the judiciary’s authority stems from public trust rather than mere power, cautioning that the legal system collapses when citizens lose faith in the impartiality and character of judges.
The case originated from multiple public complaints accusing the judicial officer of accepting bribes in exchange for favorable rulings. Instead of immediate disciplinary action, the Lahore High Court initially placed the judge under special surveillance. Subsequent quarterly intelligence and performance reports consistently rated his professional reputation as poor, leading to a formal departmental inquiry into allegations of corruption, maladministration, and misconduct.
Although the inquiry committee found insufficient concrete evidence to prove direct bribery, it confirmed the judge’s corrupt reputation and compromised integrity. Based on these findings, the departmental authority dismissed the officer from service.
The judge appealed to the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, which altered the dismissal to compulsory retirement, allowing him to retain post-service benefits. The Supreme Court rejected this leniency, ruling that proven persistent bad reputation requires dismissal, not a softened penalty.
The court dismissed the judge’s petitions seeking reinstatement and removal of adverse remarks from his record, affirming that the judiciary demands not only actual honesty but also the clear perception of integrity.
