' TARIQ PARVEZ, J.---Quite briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner joined services of University of Peshawar in September, 1970 and was still in service when received C.O.T. (Central Overseas Training) Scholarship, proceeded to United Kingdom and obtained Ph. D. In BioChemistry in the year 1979. On his return, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor Bio-Chemistry and then Associate Professor in the same subject.
' The petitioner in order to add to his experience, applied to Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha Qatar for the post of Technical Consultant which application was accepted with offer to the petitioner for his appointment vide letter, dated 23-12-1991.
2. The petitioner applied to respondent No,2. Namely, Vice-Chancellor of the University (a) grant of ex-post-factor approval for the appointment (b) deputing his services to the appointing institution for a period of three years commencing from 7-6-1992 (c) for issuance of NOC to proceed abroad.
The ex-post-facto approval was granted on 6-5-1992 and the other two requests, refere to above, were under process when the petitioner in capacity of Member of Ad hoc Committee of the Bio- Chemical Society was to proceed to Karachi, and therefore, applied for 17 days leave from 17-5- 1992 to 2-6-1992. The petitioner is said to have then proceeded to Karachi after handing over the charge to the Chairman.
' It appears that the petitioner thereafter, instead of returning back from Karachi proceeded to Doha.
3. The petitioner while in Doha Qatar received letter, dated 17-2-1993 from Professor Israruddin Department of Geography where the said Professor was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the case of wilful absence of the petitioner from his office to which the petitioner on 8-4-1993 sent the written reply. However, nothing untowards happen thereafter, when in July 1993, the petitioner came to Peshawar and was informed that the report prepared by the Enquiry Officer has been placed before respondent No,4, the Syndicate of the University on which the petitioner raised objection by stating that any proceedings conducted in his absence and report submitted by the Enquiry Officer without associating him would be a nullity in law, but vide letter, dated 27-3-1994 the petitioner was informed that his services at Peshawar University stand dispensed with effect from 17-5-1992.
4. Appeal was filed before the Chancellor of the University but the petitioner was informed vide letter, dated 10-1-1995 that his appeal stand dismissed. However, on an application filed by the petitioner before the Chancellor for reviewing the earlier decisions, the appeal of the petitioner was marked to the Vice-Chancellor and the case was once again placed before the Syndicate on 4-6- 1995. It was decided that the Vice-Chancellor shall discuss the case of the petitioner with the Dean Faculty of Science, Chairman of Chemistry Department and also by associating the petitioner in such decision. It. Was on 11-3-1996 that the petitioner was finally conveyed that his case of reinstatement cannot be considered.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to different documents appended with the writ petition submitted that the order, dated 27-3-1994 and the order, dated 11-3-1996 are without lawful authority and of no legal effect because both have been passed at the back of the petitioner without providing him the opportunity to be heard which is in clear violativen of the rules of natural justice and also against the rules of the University Employees and Disciplinary Statutes where no order can be passed adverse to the incumbent without issuing a show-cause notice and without conducting a fair enquiry with right to the incumbent to participate in the proceedings.
It was highlighted that although the syndicate decided that in view of appeal of the petitioner sent back by respondent No,3 to respondent No,2, the last order, dated 11-3-1996 could not have been passed unless the matter was discussed by respondent No,2 with the Dean of Faculty of Science, Chairman of Chemistry Department and the petitioner.
6. Leaned counsel for the respondents submitted that the letter, dated 17-2-1993 from Professor Israruddin to the petitioner was complete compliance of the Rules of the University Statutes, it has expressly communicated to the petitioner the areas of enquiry and such notice was replied by the petitioner vide his letter, dated 8-4-1993 which would be sufficient compliance of Rules of natural justice for getting the view-point and explanation of the petitioner.
7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents brought to our notice that the petitioner even at present is serving under respondents 1 and 2 as Associate Professor of Bio- Chemistry on a post which was later on advertised to which the petitioner was chosen and appointed and that the petitioner by his conduct is estopped to challenge the legality of the proceedings carried out against him on the premises of his wilful absence from his duty from his earlier assignment.
8. The perusal of the record and the relevant Rules of the Calendar of the University of Peshawar Statutes would show that no proper enquiry, as contemplated under the law was ever held against the petitioner. Mere addressing a letter by Professor Israruddin, describing himself to be Enquiry Officer and asking for the explanation of the petitioner, reply through letter of 8th April, 1993 cannot be held to be a show-cause notice or a charge-sheet nor the reply can he treated equivalent to the participation of the petitioner in a lawfully initiated enquiry. The order, dated 27-3-1994 dispensing with the services of the petitioner with effect from 17-5-1992 on the charge of wilful absence from his duty cannot be protected on the mere ground that the petitioner has earlier filed his written reply. The object of enquiry always is to probe into the facts finding but by associating the person against whom such enquiry is held with added opportunity to the incumbent to be given the right of personal audience and to rebut the allegations contained in the show-cause notice. The Enquiry Officer, in the instant case, has failed to comply with the provisions of the statutory Rules.
9. The reference by the Chancellor of the case of the petitioner to respondent No,2 i,e,. Vice- Chancellor, pursuant to which letter, dated 16-10-1995 was addressed to the Dean of Faculty of Science, the Chairman Department of Chemistry and the petitioner, the office order, dated 11-3- 1996 is contrary to the letter, dated 16-10-1995 as the matter of reinstatement of the petitioner was discussed by the Vice-Chancellor only with Chairman of the Chemistry Department leaving out the Dean of Faculty of Science and the petitioner.
10. In view of the fact that order, dated 27-3-1994 and 11-3-1996 both issued, the first one dispensing with the services of the petitioner and the second refusing to entertain his case for reinstatement being hit by audi alteram partem, are thus not sustainable under the law. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed. The orders, dated 27-3-1994 and 11-3-1996 are set aside. However, option is that of the respondents to retake up the matter against the petitioner, if they would so like.
Regarding fresh assignment that the petitioner is holding on the basis of his new appointment, this Court would not make reference to the status of the petitioner qua holding two positions, one based on his earlier appointment commencing from September, 1970 and the second assigned to him in the year 1996 as this Court is not presently seized of the controversy. Otherwise too, it is for the concerned respondents to determine and it is for the petitioner to decide as to what position he wants to retain or is beneficial to him. No order as to costs.