' This judgment shall also decide the following writ petitions, as they involve the same questions of law and fact:-- ' Writ Petitions Nos. 16151, 16225, 16062, 16060, 16990., 16199, 16184,.15890, 16152, 16061, 15889, 16064, 15888, 16226, 16153, 16228, 16227, 16229, 16156, 15842, 15825, 15839, 15837, 15843 and 15840 of 1995.
2. The petitioners in the present and the abovementioned writ petitions were appointed on 30-7- 1995 against various posts by Zila Council, Lahore on the recommendation of the District Selection Committee. Vide stereotype letters dated 28-9-1995 services of the petitioners were terminated by the Administrator of the Zila Council in pursuance of a directive received from the Deputy Commissioner/Chairman, District Selection Committee, which was issued in furtherance of the decision of this Court passed in Writ Petition Ne.10210 of 1995. These petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution have been filed for the relief that the orders dated 28-9-1995, terminating the services of the petitioners may be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been turned out of their jobs without issuing any prior show-cause notice and affording them opportunity of hearing. According to him, the impugned orders involved in these writ petitions not only offend the principle of natural justice which enjoins that no adverse action can be taken against a person, without first affording an opportunity of hearing to him but the same have also been passed in violation of the order passed in Writ Petition No,10210 of 1995. It is pointed out that this Court had specifically ordered that where appointments in furtherance of the recommendations of the District Selection Committee had already been made the same should not be undone without issuing proper prior show-cause notice. It is submitted by the learned counsel that neither the District Selection Committee nor the Administrator, Zila Council afforded them opportunity of hearing to show that their appointments were not against merit.
4. Aforementioned Writ Petition No,10210 of 1995 was filed on the allegation that the District Selection Committee, Lahore had made recommendations for appointments of various candidates against various posts in the District on extraneous considerations, by ignoring merit of the candidates. The Deputy Commissioner/Chairman, District Selection Committee and the ADC (G)/Secretary, District Selection Committee were summoned alongwith the record. The learned Advocate-General also appeared on behalf of the Selection Committee. Admitting that the appointments ih many cases were not on the basis of merit the Deputy Commissioner/Chairman and the A.D.C.(G), Secretary of the District Selection Committee offered that they would reconsider the selections/recommendations made by the Committee and fresh recommendations will be made strictly in accordance with the merit. On the basis of the concession so given, the writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:- "The Deputy Commissioner and the A.D.C.(G), Lahore have given an undertaking that they will scrutinize the applications of various candidates/applicants for the various posts in the Lahore District and they will redetermine the merit of the candidates. The appointments and selection shall be made by them afresh strictly in accordance with merit, without in any way being influenced by political pressure from any (quarter whatsoever. In view of the very fair undertaking given by these 'officers this petition is disposed of as having borne fruit. I appreciate the undertaking and the assurance given by these officers. However, it may be observed that where unmerited selection has already been acted upon, the same should be undone after issuing proper prior show-cause notice. Office shall send a copy of this order to the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore. ".
5. Despite the fact that it was specifically ordered that where unmerited selection made by the Committee had already been acted upon, the same would not be undone without first issuing proper prior show-cause notice to the appointees. It appears that this direction was not kept in view and the appointments which were found to have been made in violation of merit have been cancelled by the Zila Council through impugned orders by giving the reason that the Deputy Commissioner/Chairman of the Selection Committee had cancelled the appointments in view of the order of the High Court passed in Writ Petition No,10210 of 1995.
6. The Deputy Commissioner, Lahore in his report has stated that the orders passed in Writ Petition No,10210 of 1995 was communicated to all the appointing authorities in the District with the clarification that if any recommendation had been acted upon before 31-8-1995 the same will be undone after issuing proper prior show-cause notice in consultation with the Deputy Commissioner/Chairman, Selection Committee, Lahore. He also endorsed the stand taken by his predecessor-in-office in the earlier writ petition, that the selections/appointments were not made on the basis of merit. In reply to para. No,2 of the petition he has offered the following comment:-- "The record available in the office of respondent No,1 does not establish that the appointments were made in accordance with the laid down procedure."
7. The learned Advocate-General has appeared on behalf of the respondents including the Zila Council. The learned Advocate-General has frankly conceded, and rightly so, that the petitioners were not given show-cause notices nor any opportunity of hearing was given to them either by the District Selection Committee or by the Zila Council before terminating their services, to show that their selection was not violative of the merit. It has been suggested that the writ petitions may be accepted and the Deputy Commissioner and A.D.C.(G), who were the members of the Selection Committee may be directed to redetermine the merit of the various candidates against various posts in the District. In those cases where it is found by them that the appointments have been made ignoring the merit, persons so appointed should be given proper opportunity of hearing to show that their appointments are not in violation of the merit. Only thereafter the recommendations qua them should be withdrawn. Learned counsel for the petitioners also supports this course of action.
8. It is now the most established principle of law that an adverse action cannot be taken against a person without first giving him a reasonablt opportunity to show that the contemplated action cannot be taken in accordance with law. This is the rule of audi alteram partem and is commonly described as a principle of Natural Justice. In the case of University of Dacca v. S. Zakir Ahmed PLD 1965 SC 90 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-- "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."
' Regarding the right of hearing of the person proceeded against it was observed as follows:-- "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 made 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, provided it gives a fair opportunity to the person sought to be affected to 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."
' The requirement of notice and proper hearing is not merely based on the principle of natural justice but it is wedded in the Injunctions of the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. In the case of Pakistan and others v. Public-at-Large and others PLD 1987 SC 304 it was held by the learned Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan that notice and right of hearing to a person against whom some action is sought to be taken are commanded by the Injunctions of the Qur'an and Sunnah.
Provisions of section 13, clauses (i) and (ii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and similar provisions of the Provincial Statutes, which provided that a civil servant who had completed 25 years' service could be compulsorily retired before reaching the age of superannuation were found to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam and thus were held to be void on taking the view that premature retirement was deprivation of right of the civil servant to continue up to the age of 60 years. Such retirement carries stigma and disgrace in the public eye and as such it adversely affects reputation also. The retirement under the impugned laws was held to be punishment resulting in the denial of right to work as also right to earn and right to reputation. Their lordships on the requirement of notice and opportunity of hearing observed as follows:--- "Right to property and honour, in addition to life, were also declared sacred which means: not only that their violation is to be punished and or compensated but also that it is to be prevented. In this behalf while the victim needs to be protected against the violation, the one who violates is made accountable. All this cannot be possible without a notice and opportunity of hearing. The denial of these safeguards for doing justice would amount to Zulm and Ziaditi against oneself as also the victim."
' The right of hearing being inherent in Islam, their Lordships gave instances from the Holy Qur'an in the following words:--- "Allah's justice, as being inclusive of due opportunity is demonstrable in another manner also. Three instances related in the Holy Qur'an are highly relevant in this context. Man, Iblees and animals were treated at par by the Almighty Allah in the rendering of justice to them. Regarding man, the example of Hazrat Adam (p.b.u.h.) and Hazrat Dawood (p.b.u.h.) were cited. In so far as man in general is concerned, there are numerous verses in the Holy Qur'an (refer to the Schedule) which clearly show that on the Day of Judgement everyone will be confronted with the evidence of his deeds, during the present life and he would have an opportunity of denial. But the evidence and the atmosphere would be such that he would not be able to deny the strength of the evidence.
Here It may be explained that in the exercise of judgment-making-there are always three main elements: the maker of the judgment, the party about whom the judgment is made and the matter/substance of the judgment. As the maker of the judgment in the case under discussion would be Almighty Himself, therefore,- it is futile to imagine that he would be making wrong judgment. In any case, man would be made aware of the accusation. And notwithstanding the reality it being question of principle, Allah Almighty has bestowed the right on man to be aware of what he is being punished for. Something can be said about the fact that when made aware, man would have an opportunity of offering an explanation or making a plea of guilty or denial. In other words, there would be an opportunity of making a plea regarding accusation. But mostly the opportunity when availed of would result in the plea of admission as the evidence would be strong and overwhelming.
' Next-instance is that of Iblees. He was scolded for having misled Hazrat Adam (p.b.u.h.) into disobedience of Allah's Command. Although, it had all happened in the presence of the Judge (Almighty Allah), the accused (Iblees) and Hazrat Adam (p.b.u.h.): and, may be, upon the now prevailing judicial norms, it could be said that there was no need for an inquiry: yet Allah Almighty called upon Iblees to explain his conduct. It was after hearing the explanation from him which was not found tenable, that he was condemned and punished for all times to come,.
' The third instance relates to demonstration of Islamic justice even when the delinquent involved is an animal. The case relates to the reign of Hazrat Suleman (p.b.u.h.) when Hudhud was found amiss in the performance of some duties. It may be mentioned here that in the context of Hazrat Suleman' s (p.b.u.h.) dominion over Mulk, man and animals, the bird was performing the functions of a State servant. It is clearly stated in the Qur'an that Hazrat Suleman (p.b.u.h.) did not render judgment in the matter till, according to him, the bird was summoned and heard in an opportunity of showing cause against the accusation."
9. From the above discussion, it is clear that show-cause notice and right of hearing are the essential requirements under the Islamic dispensation of justice in judicial as well as administrative proceedings. It was absolutely essential that the petitioners who had already been appointed in pursuance of the recommendations made by the District Selection Committee, should have been given proper show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing to show that their ouster from service was not justified. They have been turned out of service on the assumption that they did not compete the merit or their appointments were in violation of the rules and procedure. These were definite allegations which necessitated a proper inquiry which in turn required that a proper and reasonable opportunity should have been granted to the petitioners to show that their selection was not in violation of the merit.
10. It was for this very reason that while passing order in Writ Petition No,10210 of 1995, I took care to clarify that in those cases where the recommendations had been acted upon and the recommendations were found to be violative of the merit, then the appointment should not be undone without first issuing proper prior show-cause notice to the appointees. This direction, however, seems to have been ignored. It is, however, heartening to find that the concerned officer through the learned Advocate-General has conceded the lapse on his part and has prayed for remanding these cases after accepting the writ petitions, for fresh determination of merit.
11. For what has been discussed above, these writ petitions are accepted with no order as to costs.
The impugned orders passed against the petitioners terminating their services are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, with the consequence that they will be deemed to be still in service. The merit of all those persons who were earlier recommended for appointments in various Departments in the District by the District Selection Committee shall be redetermined by the Deputy Commissioner and the Additional Deputy Commissioner (G) of Lahore District in consulation with the appointing authority. In those cases where they find that the recommendation was in violation of the merit or otherwise patently against the law, they will issue proper show- cause notice to such persons and after affording them reasonable opportunities of hearing, will pass proper orders for withdrawing the recommendations and it will be only in consequence of such fresh orders that services of such unmerited appointees can be dispensed with by the concerned appointing Authorities. It is further clarified that those candidates who competed the merit but were otherwise ignored previously on extraneous considerations, will be recommended to the concerned appointing Authorities who will then issue letters of appointments in their favour.