WIQAR AHMAD, J. This order is directed to dispose of the petition filed by petitioner under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. Petitioner has contended in his writ petition that he had been employee of the Health Department Government Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and qualified his MBBS examination from Gomal Medical College D.I. Khan. He further contended that he had completed his MBBS degree, FCPS Part-1, IMM Examination and other requisite training of allied wards, as same were necessary requirements for sitting in FCPS Part-II Examination. He had submitted his dissertation (thesis) to the respondents, which was accepted by respondents vide their letter dated 02.02.2019 with the remarks "your dissertation titled FREQUENCY OF STROKE AFTER AORTIC VALVE REPLACMENT has been reviewed and accepted for FCPS Examination" He also contended that he had accordingly submitted said letter to respondents for granting permission to sit in FCPS Part-II Examination, but same was objected by respondents with the remarks that the letter showing approval of this thesis had been found fake by the examination authorities. A Disciplinary Committee had also been constituted against the petitioner by respondents and without affording him a proper opportunity of hearing vide order dated 06.08.2019 he was awarded the following punishment;
1. You are debarred for three years from appearing in any CPSP examination with ef fect from Jan 01, 2019.
2. To write a new Dissertation on a new topic.
Feeling aggrieved from said order, petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate forum of respondent No. 3, which was also regretted vide letter dated 22.10.2019. Feeling aggrieved from both the orders of respondents, petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant constitutional petition with the following prayer; "Under circumstances mentioned abov e, it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be please to issue appropriate writs to the respondents granting the following reliefs to the petitioner;
(1) That the impugned order/punishment of the disciplinary committee under respondent No. 1. and 2 dated 6th August, 2019 may be declared without jurisdiction, without lawful authority and of no legal ef fect.
(2) That impugned order of respondent No. 2 (President CPSP) passed in appeal dated 07th August, 2019 may also be declared without jurisdiction, without lawful authority and of no legal ef fect.
(3) It may be directed to respondents No. 1 to 3 to accept Dissertation (The sis) already submitted by the petitioner and to issue Roll Number to the petitioner for sitting in FCPS (Part-II) Examination going to be held in the month of October , 2020 (with cost throughout).
3. Respondents were summoned, who submitted their para-wise comments, wherein they have stated that petitioner had submitted fake certificate/letter regarding approval of, his dissertation (thesis) to the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as "CPSF"), which had been prepared through cut and paste method and it did not match with the actual letter issued by Research and Evaluation Unit (hereinafter referred to as "REU"). They have also stated in the comments that disciplinary committee was constituted for inquiry, which had awarded the impugned punishment/penalties after hearing the petitioner.
4. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents and perused the record.
5. Perusal of record reveals that petitioner has been awarded a heavy penalty by barring the petitioner from appearing in examination for a period of three years, as well as submitting any dissertation or thesis within the said three years. Allegations against the petitioner had been that he had submitted a fake certificate showing approval of his dissertation, before the CPSP . Same was also alleged = to have been prepared by using the method of cut and paste electronically , which had not been matching with the actual letter of REU Department. It has also been asserted by respondents that the punishm ent had been awarded after due process of inquiry which had also been attended by the petitioner , and that his appeal was also divested of any force, therefore same had also been dismissed. Concluding Para of the comments requires a reproduction herein for ready reference; "The disciplinary committee meeting held on June 29th, 2019 and July 7th 2019. The petitioner participated in the meeting with other trainees who also submitted fake approval. The members of committee high qualified and vast experience in medical field. The petitioner failed to submit any evidence in writing accepting fake approval received through other than CPSP official ID and thereafter the sante document was sent to CPSP to avail undue advantages. CPSP immediately reported to Cyber Crime Unit, FIA also issued reminders and several time visited FIA Office with request to locate culprit person. It is necessary to note that even suffering, petitioner did not lodge any complaint against user of email. We humbly pray to this honorable court, issue necessary directions to concerned agencies to locate culprit. Petitioner is not required for consideration for any relief therefore, it is prayed to this honorable court, petition may kindly be disposed of without any relief to petitioner."
In the above reproduced Para it has been stated that CPSP had reported the matter to Cyber Crime Unit F.I.A for location of the actual culprits, as the said fake letter had been received and submitted by other candidates also.
Any document, showing the proceedings of inquiry has not been annexed with the comments by respondents, but learned counsel for respondents has submitted copy of extracts of the inquiry report showing the proceedings of inquiry and requested that it be placed on record. Since the case had been heard to a larger extent, by then said document being relevant was allowed to be placed on record. The report indicates that it has just been mentioned that petitioner, long with other two candidates had been interviewed by the InquirY Committee. We do not find the interview of petitioner conducted by the Disciplinary Committee sufficient for fulfilling the requirement of due hearing, before imposition of the major penalty. He had neither been confronted with the nature of allegations against him in writing, nor has his reply been obtained in writing. He was not afforded personal hearing in the appeal filed by him and same had also been dismissed without hearing the petitioner. The rules of natural justice shall be deemed imbibed in every statute, wherein it has been authorizing levy of any punishment. Petitioner had qualified Part-15t of his FCPS examination and banning him to write or submit any dissertation, or appear in any examination for the period of three years, was not a mino r penalty . Such a penalty may prevent a person from qualifying an examination ever. In the leading judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakis tan given in the case of. "The University of Dacca through its Vice Chancellor & another v/s Zakir Ahmed" reported as PLD 1965 Supreme Court 90 the Hon'ble Court had held that duty to observe the principles of natural justice shall be deemed applied, in absence of positive words to that effect in a statute or other legal document. Relevant part of observations of the Hon'ble Court is reproduced hereunder for ready reference; "This Court has already had occasion to point out in at least three cases, namely, in thee cases of the Chief Commissioner, Karachi v. Mrs. Dina Sohirab Katrak (PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 45), Faridsons Limited v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1961 SC 537) and Abdur Rahman v. Collector and Deputy Commissioner, Bahatwalnagar and others (PLD 1964 SC 461) that in all proceedings by whomsoever held, whether judicial or administrative, the principles of natural justice have to be observed if the proceedings might result in consequences affecting "the person or property or other right of the parties concerned." This rule applies even though there may be no positive words in the statute or legal document; whereby the power is vested to take such proceedings, for, in such cases this requirement is to be implied into it as the minimum requirement of fairness."
Further ahead in the said judgment it was also observed; "From a careful review of the decisions 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 arc 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."
Similar findings had also been , recorded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Hazara (Hill Tract) Improvement through its Chairman and others v/s Mst. Qaisra Elahi and others" reported as 2005 SCMR 678 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held; "12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment as well as available record carefully. The principle of natural justice enshrined in the maxim audi alteram partem is one of the most important principles and its violation is always considered enough to vitiate even most solemn proceedings. Reference in this behalf may be made to the case of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and others v. Nasir Jamal Malik and others 2001 SCMR 934. In this judgment it has been held that where adverse action is contemplated to be taken against the person/persons, he/they has/have a right to defend such action, notwithstanding the fact that the statute governing their rights does not contain provision of the principle of natural justice and even in absence thereof it is to be read/considered as a part of such statute in the interest of justice. It is important to note that the principle of natural justice is now made inbuilt part of civil contracts like the one under discussion. This principle originates from Islamic System of Justice as evident from historical episode when Iblees was scolded, for having misled Hazrat Adam (p.b.h.) into disobedience of Allah's command. Almighty Allah called upon Iblees to explain his conduct and after having an explanation from him which was found untenable, he was condemned and punished for all times to come. Thus, it is held that the principle of natural justice has to be applied in all kinds of proceedings strictly and departure therefrom would render subsequent actions illegal in the eye of law.
Further reliance in this respect may be placed upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as PLD 1964 Supreme Court 410 , 2002 PLC (C.S.) 128 and 2003 PLC (C.S.) 497.
In the proceedings impugned in the instant constitutional petition, we find that the rule of audi alteram partem have not been given due deference and petitioner has not been afforded a proper opportunity of hearing, the actions impugned herein cannot therefore be maintained.
6. A proper opportunity of hearing had neither been afforded to the petitioner during the process of inquiry, nor at appellate stage, both the decisions impugned herein are therefore set aside to the extent of petitioner. Respondents may initiate a fresh inquiry against the petitioner within a period of three months from receipt of copy of this judgment, wherein petitioner shall be confronted with the gist of allegations in writing and his response may be taken in writing, in support whereof and he should also be heard in person. The matter being sensitive in nature, as it may have a negative bearing on specialized education in medical field in Pakistan, Director F.I.A of the concerned region, is also directed to expedite the process of inquiry requested by CPSP and to conclude the same within a period of three months. Office shall also send a copy of this judgment to Director F.I.A of the concerned region for necessary action.
7. With the decisions and observations made above, the instant writ petition is disposed of.