1. AJMAL MIAN, J.-This Petition is directed against the orders dated 8-3-1980 and 6-5-1980 passed by the Respondent.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above Petition are that the Petitioner was a student of third year (5th. Semester) in Mehran University of Engineering and Technology at Jamshoro. It seems that on 8-3-1980 the Petitioner was served with a cyclostyled suspension notice (annexure A) by the Registrar: Mehran University, informing him that under the Syndicate---s resolution No. I (a), dated 7-2-1980, his admission was suspended and he was restrained from entering into both Nawabshah and Jamshoro campuses of the University. It also seems that the disciplinary committee in its report dated 5-3-1580 recommended the rustication of 11 students inter alia of the Petitioner for a period of 3 years. However, the syndicate in its meeting dated 7-3-1980 instead of acting upon the above recommendation resolved to issue a show-- cause notice to the Petitioner and to the other students. It further seems that on 11-3-1980, the petitioner was served with a show- cause notice contain--ing the alleged charge of misconduct on his part. It may be advantageous to reproduce herein below the contents of the above show-cause notice which reads as follows: ---To, Mr. Fayaz Ali, s/o Abdullah Ghanghro, Ghanghro House, Ratodero, District Larkana Subject Show-Cause Notice The Discipline Committee of Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro having received complaints of your mis-conduct and criminal actions, after preliminary enquiry has recommended action against you, on account of following charges.
3. That you are student of 4th semester and you stay at Sachal Hotel Room No. 88, at Jamshoro.
4. Whereas you alongwith other colleagues namely Haroon Babar, Abbas Jamali and deceased Amir M. Gujarani left for Nawabshah and you are reported to have been involved in the incident dated 3-3-1980 which took place at Nawabshah adjacent to the premises of A-block Hostel, which resulted in the death of Amir Muhammad Gujarani, Student of 5th. Semester, Civil Engineering Department. And because of your such involvement which resulted in the death of Amir Muhammad, you went to Taluka Police Station to file a suit and were detained there and where your friends including Mazhar Baloch and Aftab Ahmad Tunio came to see you on 4th March 1980 and "after which they came to see the Vice-Chancellor in the office of the Incharge Nawabshah Campus of this University showing concern about your detention".
5. You are therefore, hereby served with this notice and required to explain the charges or appear in person before the Vice-Chancellor within the stipulated period of 10 days and also show cause why you should not be rusticated and or your admission cancelled on account of the above charges levelled against you. In case you fail to reply or appear in person as mentioned above, it will be considered that you have accepted the aforesaid charges against you and the decision will be made accordingly (Sd.)
6. MOULA BUX QURESHI, REGISTRAR, FOR VICE-CHANCELLOR, MEHRAN UNIVER. OF' ENGG. & TECH., JAMSHORO.
2. It further seems that in reply to the above show-cause notice the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 18-3-1980 (annexure C to the counter-affidavit). According to the averments of the Respondent in the counter-affidavit the Petitioner was summoned by the disciplinary Committee and was asked few questions. It may be observed that in support of the above averments, the Respondent has filed annexure A-2, which is a photostat copy of the questions and replies, but it does not indicate as to the person who had put the above questions, nor it indicates that these questions were put by the disciplinary committee.
7. Be that as it may the matter was again placed before the Syndicate in its meeting held on 17th and 18th April, 1980, wherein it was resolved that the petitioner be restricted for a period of 2 years.
8. Consequently, the petitioner was served with the rustication order dated 6-5-1980. The review filed by the petitioner was also rejected by the Syndicate and the decision in respect thereof was communicated to him through a letter dated 12-11-1980. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the above action has filed the present Petition.
9. 2(a). In support of the above Petition, it has been urged by Mr. P. M. Amer, learned counsel for the Petitioner, that the Respondent has violated the principles of natural justice in as much as no fair opportunity was provided to the petitioner to defend himself against the charge contained in the show-- cause notice. From the documents placed on record by the respondent, it is evident that neither the person who had lodged report against the petitioner was examined by the disciplinary committee or by the Syndicate nor the petitioner was allowed to .Associate with the inquiry which was conducted by the disciplinary committee. The Petitioner was not even told as to the evidence which was used against him to conclude that he was guilty of the charge mentioned in the aforesaid show-cause notice. Reliance has been placed on the case of University of Dacca through the V. C. And another v. Zakir Ahmad, (PLD 1965 SC 90) the case of Ali Ahmad Panhwar and others v. V. C. University of Sind, (PLD 1980 Kar. 490) and tin-reported case decided on 18-2-1981 by a Division Bench of this Court in Aftab Ahmad v. V. C. Mehran University (C. P. No. 1440/80).
(b) Reverting to the above SC case of 1965, it may be observed that in the above case the Supreme Court while dealing with the legality of the inquiry conducted by the Dacca University Authority in respect of a disciplinary action taken against a student observed that in all proceedings by whomsoever held, whether judicial or administrative, the principles of natural justice are to be observed if the proceedings result in consequences affecting the person or the property or other rights of the parties concerned. In the above case it was also pointed out that the Court does not insist upon technicalities in holding an inquiry by a domestic tribunal like a disciplinary committee of a University, but the procedure adopted by such tribunal should be, which provides a fair opportunity to the person charged with. It may be advanta--geous to reproduce herein below the relevant passage from the above Judgment, which reads as follows :- "From a careful review of the decision cited before us it appears that wherever any person or body of persons is empowered to take decisions after ex- post facto investigation into facts which would result in consequences affecting the person, property or other right of another person, then in the absence of any express words in the enactment giving such power excluding the application of the principles of natural justice, the Courts of law are inclined generally to imply that the power so given is coupled with the duty to act in accordance with such principles of natural justice as may be applicable in the facts "and circumstances of a given case.
10. What these principles of natural justice are it is not possible to lay down with any exactness, for, they have been variously defined in various cases, as was pointed out by the Judicial Committee in the case of the University of Ceylon v. Fernando. Tuker, L. J. Said in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk (1). The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the enquiry, the rules under which the Tribunal is acting, the subject-matter that is being dealt with, and so forth." Nevertheless, the general consensus of judicial opinion seems to be that, in order to ensure the "elementary and essential principles of fairness" as a matter of necessary implication, the person sought to be affected must at least be male aware of the nature of the allegations against him, he should be given a fair opportunity to make any relevant statement putting forward his own case and "to correct or controvert any relevant statement brought forward to his prejudice." Of course, the person, body or authority concerned must act in good faith, but it would appear that it is not bound to treat the matter as if it was a trial or to administer oath or examine witnesses in the presence of the person accused or give him facility for cross-examining the witnesses against him or even to serve a formal charge-sheet upon him. Such a person or authority can obtain "information in any way it thinks fit "fair opportunity to the person sought to be affected to d correct or contradict any relevant statement prejudicial to him. In other words, "in order to act justly and to reach just ends by just means" the Courts insist that the person or authority should have adopted the above elementary and essential principles" unless the same had been expressly excluded by the enactment empowering him to so act.
(c) With reference to the case reported in PLD 1980 Kar. 490 it may be stated that in the above case also the Petitioners were students, who were rusticated for a period of 3 years., In the above case it was also contended that there was violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as even no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners, nor they were afforded any opportunity of being heard before the impugned order was passed. A Division Bench of this Court after reviewing the case law on the subject hold that the action was without lawful authority. It was reiterated that the rule audi alteram partem, that no one should be condemned unheard, is to be read in the relevant law unless its application is expressly excluded by law.
11. (d). As regard the above unreported judgment given in C P. 1440/80, it may, be observed that the petitioner in that petition was one of the students, who were suspended alongwith the Petitioner in the present Petition, though for a different charge. He was also rusticated for a period of 3 years. A Division Bench of this Court set aside the above rustication order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.
3. From the above cited decisions, it is evident that even in a disciplinary action against a student the principles of natural justice are to be adhered to. The student charged with should be provided a reasonable fair opportunity to meet the charge. In the instant case, as pointed out hereinabove, that even the person, who made the report against the Petitioner to the University authorities was not examined, nor the Petitioner was provided an opportunity to test the veracity of the complaint.
12. Furthermore, no witness whatsoever, was examined in order to conclude that the petitioner was involved in a Criminal charge like murder. In this view of the matter we are clearly of view that the principles of natural justice have been violated in passing the suspension order as well as the rustication order. We, therefore, allow the Petition with no order as to costs and declare that above orders as being without lawful authority. However, it will be open to the Respondent to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner in accordance with law. We may observe that' one year and nine months have already expired since the passing of the suspension order the University Authority may take into consideration the above aspect while deciding the question whether fresh disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the Petitioner.