MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.---Through instant petition, petitioner has assailed orders dated 03.10.2019 and 09.04.2019, passed by respondent No.4/Secretary , Preliminary Appeal Committee and respondent No.3/Secretary Disciplinary Committee, respectively , whereby petitioner was disqua lified for a period of three years for using unfair means in B.A/B.Sc. Supplementary Examination, 1991.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submi ts that the matter belongs to the year 1991 and respondent-university remained silent for about 28-years. He adds that respondent-university issued No Objection Certificate in favour of petitioner for migration to University of Karachi in the year 1996 but no such allegation was levelled against petitioner at that time. He further submits that B.A degree was issued in favour of petitioner 24.04.1997 without any objection. He contends that impugned action has been taken in an unfair and arbitrary manner . He argues that impugned orders are non-speaking and have been rendered without providing fair opportunity of hearing to petitioner , therefore, are not sustainable in the eye of law. He has referred to Director-General, Ordnance Services, General Headquarters, Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Abdul Latif (2003 SCMR 410), Tariq Aziz-ud-Din and others: In re: Human Rights Cases Nos.8340, 9504-G, 13936-G. 13635-P and 14306-G to 143309-G 6 2009 (2010 SCMR 1301 ), Miss Afshan Amjad v. Vice-Chancellor University of the Punjab, Lahore and another (1996 CLC 877) and Ghulam Sarwar Khan v. Chairman Punjab Board of Technical Education and others (2015 MLD 1386 ).
3. Conversely , learned Legal Advisor for respondent-university submits that petitioner managed to prepare bogus award lists with connivance of some official of respondent-university , who was compulsory retired from service. He adds that the Disciplinary Committee, after appreciating the record, rightly held petitioner guilty and said decision was also upheld by the Preliminary Appeal Committee and learned counsel for petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the same.
4. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
5. Perusal of record reveals that petitioner took all the grounds and narrated factual position in his application before Secretary Disciplinary Committee as well as appeal before Vice Chancel lor of respondent-university but impugned orders show mechanical approach of the authorities towards the matter . The appellate order reflects that Vice Chancellor entrusted petitioner's appeal to Preliminary Appeal Committee for consideration, which upheld the decision made by the Disciplinary Com mittee. The impugned orders do not reflect application of mind and reasoning while deciding the matter , thus, the same are non-speaking, within the contemplation of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
6. It is also not discernible from the impugned orders that petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing to advance his defence, which amounts to violation of well-enshrined and celebrated principle of audi alteram partem i.e. no one should be condemned unheard. Said principle is applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial and non- judicial proceedings. No order affecting the right of a party could be passed without affording opportunity of hearing.
Reliance is placed upon Naeem Abbas v. Government of Punjab through Secretary and 4 others [2017 PLC (C.S.) 404 ]
7. In view of the above, instant petition is allowed and impugned orders are declared to be illegal and without lawful authority . The matter is remitted to respondent No.3 / Secretary , Disciplinary Committee with the direction to decide the same afresh, strictly in accordance with law as well as case law cited by learned counsel for petitioner , mentioned supra, through a well-reasoned speaking, order , after providing proper opportunity of being heard to petitioner .