' The petitioner was appointed/ nominated as a Member of the Punjab Baitalul-Maal cir-ctittce, Lahore. On 11-2- Q98 7e was removed by order, dated 1-1-": passed by the Punjab Baitul Maal Councils constituted under the Punjab Baitul Maal Act, 1991.
2. Learned counsel for the ,petitioner argued that neither the petitioner was any opportunity of hearing nor he was associated with any inquiry conducted by the respondents.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab on instructions from the Director-General, Punjab Baitul Maal argued that there was no provision in the Act or Rules to give any show-cause notice or to provide any opportunity of hearing to a nominee before his removal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. Rule 27 of the rules framed under the Punjab Baitul Maal Act, 1991, empowers the Ameen to cause an inquiry into the irregularities, lack of interest or misconduct of a Chairman, Vice-Chairman or a Member of the District Baitul Maal Committee. If such a complaint is found correct, the Council would have full powers to remove such Chairman, Vice-Chairman or a Member. This provision clearly shows that the removal of the Members of a Committee cannot be. Made through any arbitrary process but has to follow an inquiry conducted under the orders of Ameen. The rules postulated the hearing of the affected person and affording an opportunity of hearing as otherwise a person may be. Held guilty of misconduct without apprising him of the charges against him. Unless a contrary intention appears from the language and context of a statute the provisions, of affording reasonable opportunity of hearing is implied to be there before a person is condemned unheard. Reference may be made to the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, East Pakistan v. Fazalur Rchman (PLD 1964 SC 410), The University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad (PLD 1965 SC 90) and Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v.Additional District and Sessions Judge/Returning Officer, Naushero Feroze (1994 SCM R 1299). It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not associated with any kind of inquiry before the order of his removal was passed. The petitioner should have been apprised of the allegations against him although a regular trial was not contemplated by law.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is accepted. The impugned order, dated 11-7-1998 passed by the Punjab Baitul Maal Council is declarated to be without lawful authority and of, no legal effect. There shall, be no order as to costs.
6. The Department shall, however, be at liberty to take proceedings against the petitioner by affording him an opportunity of hearing.