ORDER CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J. -- Petitioner has challenged the vires of the orders of the respondents dated 4.2.1998 and 11.12.1999 in which the petitioner was disqualified by the respondents-Board.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the impugned order does not contain any reason.' He further submits that petitioner is not beneficiary as the petitioner did not get any benefit of the forgery or fabrication in the record of the respondents-Board. He further submits that petitioner appeared in the subsequent examination on the basis of the result notification issued by the respondents-Board. He further submits that Chairman respondent No. 1 constituted a Committee to probe into the matter and the Committee submitted report and had given a finding that result of one disputed paper of the petitioner be quashed but this fact was not considered by the disciplinary committee as well as appellate committee. He further submits that proper hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. He further submits that no evidence was recorded in presence of the j petitioner. He further submits that petitioner filed W.P. No. 6548- 99 which was accepted by this Court and the matter was remanded to the appellate committee to decide the appeal of the petitioner within three days.
Respondents failed to decide the appeal .Of the petitioner within the prescribed period. He further submits that action of the respondents is without lawful authority as the appellate committee did not consider the case of the petitioner sympatrically as directed by this Court vide order dated 25.11.1 999 in W.P. No. 6548-99.
2. Learned Legal Advisor of the respondents raised a preliminary objection that writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative remedy to file a review petition. He further submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its on. Decision in place of the decision of the Tribunal below while exercising power under Article 199 of the Constitution. He further submits that petitioner did not alleged any malice against the respondents. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that period of disqualification had already expired and the petitioner after lapse of disqualification period appeared in the first annual examination 1999 and 2nd annual examination 1999. Therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the well- known principle of estoppel and waiver. He further submits that disciplinary committee and appellate committee are not criminal Courts and can decide the case without providing right of cross- examination to the petitioner to the witnesses.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. Without adverting to the counter pleas of learned counsel for the parties it is admitted fact .That petitioner has alternative remedy to file a review petition before the respondents under the rules and regulations of the respondents. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Ismail's case (PLD 1996 S.C. 246). The aforesaid proposition of law is supported by the following reported judgment:- PLD 1976 Lahore 919 (M/s. Khuda Bakhsh Khadim Hussain's case).
In this view of the matter, petitioner is directed to file review petition before the respondents who are directed to decide the review petition of the petitioner within 20 days on merits in accordance with law.
In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.