1979 PLP 604 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AKRAM, .J.‑This is a review petition against, the judgment dated 18th of September 1978, whereby this Court partly accepted the Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1978, by special leave filed by respondent No. 1 herein against the present petitioner and some others, Briefly stated the relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are these. The respondent was a final year student in the Nishtar Medical College, Multan. On the 27th of April 1977, he alongwith another student, attacked and beat up a professor of the College in the College premises. In this connection, in due course, the Disciplinary Committee submitted its report to the Principal and the respondent was expelled from the College for a period of three years in accordance with the order passed by him on the 28th of August 1977. The respondent questioned the validity of this order through a writ petition filed in the Lahore High Court at Lahore. But a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 28th of October 1977, dismissed his writ petition. He also failed on an Inter Court appeal which was rejected by a Division Bench of the Court on the 19th of November 1977. This Court however, partly accepted his appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court on the 18th of September 1978. In the opinion of this Court under rule H of the General Disciplinary Rules. contained in the prospectus of the Government Medical Colleges of the Punjab for the year 1975‑76, the Principal of the College had no lawful authority to rusticate a student for more than one year. This Court therefore, allowed the writ of the respondent to the extent that his rustica tion shall be valid for one year only. In these circumstances the petitioner has filed this petition for review of the order made by this Court. In this petition the petitioner has prayed for the following two reliefs that‑ (a) the judgment dated 18th of September 1978 in Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1978, may be reviewed and the judgment of the Lahore High Court be restored ; or (b) in the alternative the petitioner may be allowed to transfer the respondent No. 1 from Nishtar Medical College to another College in the Punjab. In this connection we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. At the outset we deem it necessary to observe that this Court in accepting the appeal of respondent No. 1 by its judgment dated 18th of September 1978, tinder review, did not even remotely approve of his conduct. Indeed, it was a most shocking and reprehensible conduct on his part to have joined with another student and attacked and beat up a Professor in the College premises. This Court however, is duty bound to interpret and apply the law according to its own understanding even to the worst of the criminal brought before it. Accordingly, in accepting the appeal of respondent No. 1, this Court had no other option but to apply the law as interpreted by it to the facts of this case brought before it. In this review petition the learned counsel for the petitioner had tried to reopen and argue the whole case once again before us on the merits and the interpretation placed by this Court on the relevant provisions in the prospectus of the College. This he is not, of course, permitted to do in these proceedings for review under the rules of this Court. In this connection it has been recently authoritatively laid down in the reported case of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State (P L D 1979 S C 741) that as finality attaches to the judgments delivered by this Court, which stands at the spex of the judicial hierarchy, a review proceeding is neither in the nature of a re‑hearing of the whole case, nor is it an appeal against the judgment under review. It is accordingly no permissible to embark upon a reiteration of the same contentions as were advanced at the time of the hearing of the appeal, but were considered an repelled in the judgment under review, in an effort to discover errors to be apparent on the face of the record. We are, therefore; constrained to hold that this review petition before us is not competent. The learned counsel for the petitioner next laid stress to contend that at any rate in the alternative, the petitioner may be allowed to transfer respon dent No. 1 from Nishtar Medical College to another college in the Punjab. In this connection however, we find that this Court had no say in the matter and it is‑open to the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law in case he has any power in the matter. Even otherwise, this petition is barred by 81 days and is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone. We therefore find that this is not a fit case for review of the judgment dated 18th of September 1978, delivered by this Court. This petition has no force and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.