P (PLP)

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Withdrawal of petitioner's Magisterial powers on a complaint by his successor reporting multifarious irregularities discovered in administrative orders on various judicial files‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioner's contention was that he had been condemned unheard in so much as withdrawal order of his Magisterial powers was passed without affording due opportunity of hearing to him though gravity of allegations against him warranted enquiry therein with a right to petitioner to examine documents which opportunity was denied to him‑‑‑petitioner's contention remained uncontroverted from the record produced before the High Court‑‑‑Notification in question, whereby petitioner was denuded of his judicial powers being violative of inalienable principle of audi alteram partem was ab initio void and was declared to be a nullity in the eye of law and was set aside. [Maxim]. Petitioner in person. ORDER Petitioner formerly Special Magistrate, WAPDA, on the complaint of his successor‑in‑office, respondent No.4, allegedly out of vendetta, bearing No.155‑58/SPL‑M/84, dated 10‑5‑1984 addressed to the Registrar of this Court, reporting multifarious irregularities discovered in administrative orders of 216 judicial files viz., non‑signing of interim orders, charge‑sheets, exhibits, accused's statements etc., culminating into the Administrative Committee's recommendation for withdrawal of all his magisterial powers opining him to be unfit for performance of judicial functions transmitted vide the Registrar's confidential letter No.1425/MIT/HC/Ref. 17/84, dated 2‑2‑1986 to the Home Secretary turning down the petitioner's tendered explanation viz., substitution of the complained of documents by his ex‑Reader, ‑ Ghulam Yasin, respondent No. 5, having been complained against inter alia under sections 161/409/411/204, P.P.C., being in league with WAPDA officials in particular Muhammad Nawaz, Director, respondent No.6 retaliating to the convictions and sentences awarded to their favourites for electricity theft leading to Criminal Original No.10 of 1984 and Sher Ali DSP who had been convicted and sentenced under section 376, P.P.C. to seven years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 7,000 in default to serve 1‑1/2 years' R.I. concurrently under section 452, P.P.C. to five years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.5,000 or to undergo for one year R.I. by the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore on petitioner's private complaint for the house‑trespass and raping of his wife at pistol point as immediate neighbour during their posting at Mianwali, affirmed by this Court vide Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1984 reported in 1985 PCr.LJ 349 as well as by the Supreme Court refusing to grant leave to appeal, was stripped off all judicial powers by the Governor of the Punjab vide Home Department's Notification No.8(1)SO(B&C)/86, dated. 3‑2‑1986.

2. Aggrieved thereby representation was preferred on 6‑2‑1986 through proper channel as well as to the Governor urging‑ fabrication of the banked upon documents who though initially expressed the view for looking into it, but eventually persuaded by the Home Secretary's advice dated 1‑4‑1986 referred the same to this Court.

3. Bewildered by the fate thereof present petition was re-coursed assailing legality of the notification, dated 3‑2‑1986 inter alia contending to have been condemned unheard viz., the premised Registrar's letter, dated 2‑2‑1986 translated into reality vide the impugned notification was conceived without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner though gravity of the complained of allegations juxtaposed to the replied stance of fabrication inherently warranted enquiry therein with a right to the petitioner to examine the documents and the spelt out author thereof preceding the stigmatised denuding of the magisterial powers permanently marring his judicial career, which never occasioned save for cursory appearance before the then M.I.T. and that too without confronting him with any material.

4. Factum whereof remained uncontroverted from the record produced by the learned Additional Advocate‑General as well as Mr. Manzoor Hussain, Additional Registrar‑II of this Court.

5. In view whereof, I am afraid the impugned super structured notification being violation of the inalienable principle of audi alteram partem is ab initio void and accordingly declaring it to be a nullity in the eye of law is hereby set aside.

6. The petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their respective costs under the circumstances. A.A./A‑559/L Petition accepted