' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This petition or leave to appeal is directed against order, dated 8-9-1999 passed by learned Single Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the writ petition preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that "the petitioner appeared in F.Sc. Pre-Medical Examination held by respondent-Board. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on the ground that he managed increase of marks in papers of English and Pakistan Study. The petitioner was asked to explain as to why action under Regulation No,6.8(iv) be not taken against the petitioner. The petitioner duly contested the charge by filing a reply and by personally explaining his case before the Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee found the allegation to be correct and while annulling the petitioner's result also disqualified the petitioner for further two examinations viz. Supplementary, 1998 and Annual, 1999. The petitioner appealed against the decision of the Disciplinary Committee but the Appellate Committee upheld the decision. The petitioner failed in further revision". Being aggrieved the petitioner filed a Constitutional petition which has been rejected, hence this petition.
3. We have heard Ch. Khurshid Ahmed, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner and Sh. Maqbool Ahmed, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the Caveators.
4. We have carefully examined the entire record and also perused the judgment impugned. It transpires from the scrutiny of record that the appeal of the petitioner was disposed of by the Appeal Committee on 28-7-1999 as follows:-- ' "Heard the candidate in person. Thoroughly checked the record intact and cross-examined the dealing officer of the A/Book Secrecy.
' The appeal of the candidate is rejected by this Committee as well. The decision of the D/E is upheld. Further strict punitive action is recommended against those found responsible by the separate Enquiry Committee."
5. We have carefully perused the order passed by the Appeal Committee and it is regretted to note that appeal, dated 5-7-1999 preferred on behalf of petitioner has been disposed of in perfunctory and slipshod manner. The points raised in appeal were neither dilated upon nor decided and the Appeal Committee has acted quite arbitrarily inasmuch as it did not care to have gone through the record of the case and the Appeal Committee appears to have failed to apply its conscious mind to the facts of the case, evidence gathered and instead toed the line ill-founded and unscrupulously drawn by the Disciplinary Committee and has adopted the same reasoning and obviously subscribed thereto rather mechanically. The Appeal Committee has ignored the core issue that how the alleged tampering was facilitated or connived by the petitioner having no access to the Secrecy Branch. The Committee failed to examine as to whether sufficient incriminating material was available which could justify the imposition of penalty? The Committee did not advert to the question as to whether the petitioner was in fact a beneficiary because admittedly the marks got increased by alleged tampering were excluded in the marks sheet and final result. The Appeal Committee has not seen as to how the provisions as contained in rule 6.8(IV) of Chapter VI of the Calendar of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, were made applicable. In the same wake of event we have regretfully observed that the question of involvement of the petitioner has been examined in a casual and cursory manner by the revisional forum which is not desirable. We are conscious of the fact that judicial consensus seems to be that there should be no interference in such domestic Tribunals/Committees in absence of exceptional circumstances but this does not mean that such matters should be decided in an arbitrary and Whimsical manner. (Emphasis provided). The said views find support from the case- law as enunciated in the following authorities: ' Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education v. Saima Azad (1996 SCMR 676), Masood Pervaiz v. The Disciplinary Committee, University of the Punjab, Lahore (1982 SCMR 1084), Rahat Siddiqui v.
Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore (1977 SCMR 213), University of Dacca v.
Zakir Ahmad (PLD 1965 SC 90), Abdus Saboor v. Karachi University (PLD 1966 SC 536), Samar Pervaiz v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore (PLD 1971 SC 838), Federation of Pakistan v. Sardar Ali (PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 25), Muhammad Bashir v. University of Punjab (PLD 1967 Lah. 1204), Abdul Majid v. Disciplinary Committee of the University of the Punjab (PLD 1970 Lah. 416), University of Ceylon v. Fernando (1960) 1 AER 631), Board of Secondary Education v. Rice 1911 AC 179), Local Board v. Arlidge 1915 AC 120), Errington v. Minister of Health (1935) 1 KB 249; General Council of Medical Education v. Spakman (1943) 2 AER 337), Akhtar Ali v. University of Punjab 1979 SCMR 549), Quadri Brothers v. Sindh Employees and others (PLD 1977 Kar. 112), M. Mahadevan v. K. Anandrajan (1974 Law Notes 483 (PC));
6. It is worthmentioning that the order of the Appeal Committee as well as revisional forum are in violation of the principles as laid down in case University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad (PLD 1965 SC 90) which are mentioned hereinbelow for ready reference:-- "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...
' From a careful review of the decisions cited before us it appears that wherever any person or body of persons is empowered to take decision after ex post facto investigation into facts which would result in consequences affecting the person, property or other right of another person, then in the absence of any express words in the enactment giving such power excluding the application of the principles of natural justice, the Courts of law are inclined generally to imply that the power so given is coupled with the duty to act in accordance with such principles of natural justice as may be applicable in the facts and circumstances of a given case.
' What these principles of natural justice are it is not possible to lay down with any exactness, for they have been variously defined in various cases...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 effected to correct or contradict any relevant statement prejudicial to him. In other words, in order to act justly and to 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.
' In saying this we are not unmindful of the necessity of maintaining discipline in educational institutions or other institutions or departments where the maintenance of discipline is essential for the orderly conduct of the institution or department concerned, nor are we unmindful of the fact that persons in charge particularly of educational institutions must be given the fullest authority to correct those placed in their charge in the same manner as parent or guardian would be able to do. But even, so, we find it difficult to accept the contention that they must also be freed from the necessity of acting in a manner which excludes every reasonable possibility of unfair action being taken. This can only be achieved by observing certain formalities which have been designed to assure the minimum essential principles of justice and fairness, by at least telling the person sought to be punished or condemned what are the allegations against him and by giving him a 'fair opportunity to correct or contradict any relevant statement to his prejudice. In the present case, it is patently clear that this was not done. The respondent was afforded no opportunity of any kind whatsoever to submit any explanation or put forward his version."
7. In sequel to the aforementioned discussion the petition is accepted and converted into appeal.
The order impugned is set aside and the order, dated 28-7-1999 passed by the Appeal Committee and order, dated 18-8-1999 of the Revisional Committee are also set aside to be without any lawful effect with the direction that the appeal, dated 5-7-1999 preferred on behalf of petitioner shall be treated as pending and decided by the Appeal Committee afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by means of a speaking order preferably within a period of two months. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.