This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.16017/95,17437/95 and 14568 of 1996, since the facts and the applicable law in all these petitions are the same.
2. The petitioners in each of the petition are medical students in the respondent-college. On account of some firing incident in the college in which a doctor is said to have died, each of the petitioner was proceeded against by the college authorities and vide the impugned order dated 10-9-1995, the petitioners, Muhammad Hassan Dogar and Amar Yar Khan were rusticated from college for two years and were also imposed a fine of ks.1,000 while petitioner, Javed Mahmood, was rusticated for three years with a fine of Rs.1,000. It is their case in these petitions that before taking the impugned action they were not duly notified and that on coming to know of the same they repeatedly tendered apology and assured good conduct and requested for withdrawal of the rustication order but in spite of acceptance of apology this was not done although the order in respect of Muhammad Jahangir Khan, similarly placed was withdrawn. The petitions were thereafter, loged in this Court and in the events that followed, under interim orders of this Court the petitioners have been taking examination, passing the same and presently they have completed their studies for 5th and final year also and are ready for examination scheduled to commence on 10-4-1997 but the college authorities are not forwarding their admission forms to the University on the ground that they need a direction from this Court, since the matter is sub judice here.
3. The case has been contested by the respondent-principal by filing report and parawise comments wherein the allegations have been denied and it is asserted that due notices were pasted repeatedly at the college notice board and telegrams at the recorded addresses of the petitioners were also sent.
4. The petitioners again applied for permission to take examination pending disposal of the petitions and on this the main cases were directed to be listed for final hearing. Learned counsel for the respondent-college was also directed to obtain latest instructions inasmuch as the petitioners have completed their studies in the college and their stay in the college premises is almost at an end and in the event the order of rustication is withdrawn, the college discipline is not likely to be affected. The petitioners also indicated that they were willing to file unconditional apology and assurance of good future behaviour in this Court. In today's hearing the petitioners, Muhammad Hassan Dogar and Amar Yar have filed the undertaking/assurance in this Court which has been placed on the respective file. Learned counsel for the respondent-college has reported that the college authorities are willing to reconsider the case, albeit sympathetically only on the condition of withdrawal of these petitions. Otherwise, it is requested that the cases may be decided on merit.
5. In support of the petitions, the grounds of absence of hearing, discrimination and double punishment have been asserted. With reference to college prospectus it is pointed out by Mr. M.
Saleem Sahgal, Advocate, one of the learned counsel, that apology is one of the punishments and the petitioners having tendered the same could not have been punished with the penalty of rustication. It is maintained that the petitioners have been subjected to double punishment for the same offence. Plea of discrimination is sought to be supported by averring that Muhammad Jahangir, the third student similarly placed and similarly punished, has been taken back while petitioners have been denied the indulgence. It is urged that this reflects the arbitrariness on the part of college authorities. On behalf of Javed Mahmood, Shaikh Munir Ahmed, Advocate, has urged that the respondent Principal was prepared to withdraw the rustication order provided this petitioner was to migrate from his college. It is urged that migration papers are complete and both the principals have also signed the same but the Secretary Health is not passing any order on the same. Mr. M. Saleem Sahgal, Advocate, has cited the case of Malik Muhammad Ramzan and others v. Punjab University, Lahore (1995 SCM R 338(2) to canvass the point that in such a situation there is no room of technicalities and that in the event of refusal of the college authorities, the Court should exercise the parental jurisdiction.
6. The ground in support of these petitions may not be examined in detail although they carry quite a weight. In the comments as well as during the course of hearing learned counsel for the respondent No. l has not been able to justify the discriminatory treatment. It has not been shown as to how the case of Jahangir was different than that of the three petitioners. One would have hoped that the college authorities exercising parental jurisdiction in such matters would have treated the students at par. A discrimination creates sufficient heart burning and generates unnecessary ill- will. The impugned order can be struck down on this ground alone.
7. The judgment cited by Mr. M. Saleem Sahgal, Advocate, is squarely on the point. In the cited judgement the Supreme Court of Pakistan accepted the unconditional apology of the petitioners and directed 'the University authorities to withdraw the expulsion order. In this case the petitioners have not only been tendering unconditional apology before the college authorities but have placed the same in writing on the files of the cases. Additionally, it is not denied that the petitioners have completed their entire studies in the college and they are not likely to remain in the premises and hence there are no chances that they will create any further mischief. The career of the petitioners is also a great consideration in exercising jurisdiction conferred by Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which is equitable and is required to be exercised considering the latest developments, such as the satisfactory completion of studies by the petitioners as well as absence of any complaint against them since the passing of the impugned expulsion order on 10-9-1995.
8. Resultantly, and respectfully following the precedent of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, I would direct the college authorities (respondent No. l) to withdraw the expulsion order and to permit the petitioners to take the final examination scheduled to commence on 10-4-1997 or thereabout. No order as to costs.