' FAISAL ZAMAN KHAN, J.--- This petition is directed against orders dated 7-1-2011 and 28-3-2011 passed by the respondent Bank.
2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner while working as a Senior Assistant Officer (Grade-III) was proceeded against departmentally and was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service. The matter was agitated before different foras, however, the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan vide its judgments dated 29-6-2010 converted the penalty of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement. Thereafter, the petitioner started to strive for payment of his provident fund and other emolument. Through, order dated 7-1-2011, he was conveyed that he is not entitled to Medical facilities as he was superannuated before the completion of 25 years of service, therefore, his case is not covered under the policy in vogue. Feeling aggrieved, he was constrained to file W.P.No,3638 of 2011, in which a direction was issued by this Court on 22-2-2011 to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of retirement benefits as well as medical facilities. Consequent thereupon, respondent Bank decided the application of the petitioner vide order dated 28-3-2011, hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to making both the afore-noted decisions, therefore, the same are not sustainable; that the question of discrimination has not been looked into by the respondent Bank qua the award of medical facilities; that equally placed persons have been granted the said facility irrespective of the fact that they had not completed the tenure as prescribed in the policy issued by the Bank; that his case was at par with the said officials, however, 'he has been discriminated, therefore, the orders are not sustainable.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents Bank supports the impugned orders.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the available record.
6. From both the impugned orders, it is manifest that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner enabling him to explain his stance. At the time of passing the impugned orders; respondent functionaries have themselves gone through the representations and in their own wisdom declined the same. Although the question of discrimination was specifically highlighted by the petitioner, yet the same was not attended to by the respondents.
7. To afford an opportunity of hearing to an employee, who agitates his grievance before his department is a principle of natural justice and in case of denial, it will amount to denying a right, which is not warranted under the law.
8. There is no cavil with the proposition that in every case an opportunity of hearing is not a sine qua non. In its latest pronouncements, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has laid down parameters for the application of the principle of audi alterarm parterm. In the case titled Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder v. Federation of Pakistan and another (PLD' 2010 SC 483) while interpreting, the above rule, the honourable Court has identified the circumstances where opportunity of hearing is not required: "(i) When an authority is vested with wide discretion
(ii) When the maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius involved
(iii) Where absence of expectation of hearing
(iv) When compulsive necessity so demands.....................................
(v) When nothing unfair can be inferred .....
(vi) When advantage by protracting a proceeding is tried to be reaped
(vii) When an order does not deprive a person of his right or liberty
(viii) In case of arrest, search and seizure in criminal case ..............
(ix) hi case of maintaining academic discipline .............
(x) In case of provisional selection to an academic course ..............
(xi) In case of enormous malpractices in selection process ..............
9. This view has again been reinforced and followed in judgments reported as Warid Telecom (Pvt.)
Limited and 4 others v. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority through Chairman (2015 SCMR 338) and Gen. R. Parvez Musharraf v. Nadeem Ahmed Advocate and another (PLD 2014 SC 585).
10. In the case in hand, the above principle enunciated by the Hon'ble apex Court is not attracted, as the case of the petitioner does not fall within the exceptions enumerated above. Non- consideration of the case of the petitioner on the question of discrimination and lack of opportunity of hearing militates the concept of natural justice and fair play, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable.
11. In view of what has been .Discussed above, I find that the orders dated 7-1-2011 and 28-3-2011 are, not sustainable, therefore, the same are set aside. The matter shall be deemed to be pending before respondent Bank, who after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall pass a reasoned order.
12. In the above terms, this petition is accepted. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.