2026 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

INAMULLAH KHAN, J.

Wasi-ud-Din, petitioner, through this writ petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, prays for cancellation of order dated 01.08.2022, through which he was dismissed from the service of Cadet College Wana, District South Waziristan.

2. Factual matrix of the petition in hand is that petitioner was serving as Lecturer in English in the Cadet College Wana (the College) and he with the permission of respondent No.4, settled his abode outside the premises of the college. But thereafter, respondent No.4 started departmental action against the petitioner on account of living outside the premises of College in this regard explanation letter dated 18.07.2022 followed by Show-Cause Notice dated 20.07.2022 was issued to him, and he submitted replies of both, the letter as well as show-cause notice. However, on 01.08.2022 the petitioner received dismissal from service order dated 01.08.2022. He preferred a departmental appeal, which was not responded, and now, he preferred this constitutional petition.

3. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5, in compliance of the directions of this Court filed their para-wise comments wherein they denied the contents of writ petition and opposed issuance of desired writ.

4. Arguments heard and record perused.

5. The petitioner in his writ petition contended that after issuing explanation letter, a show-cause notice was issued to him, and though he submitted his elaborated replies to that letter and notice, but respondent No.4 dismissed him from service in a hasty manner through the impugned office order. Conversely, the respondents Nos.4 and 5, in their comments while referring to their official correspondence claimed that the petitioner was unwilling worker and a person of habitual misconduct, therefore, he has rightly been dismissed from service. Respondents have also questioned the maintainability of writ petition.

6. Although learned counsel representing both the parties have exhaustively argued the case on its merits, however, instead of dealing with the contentions advanced on both sides, it will be useful to have a general idea of the concept of "natural justice" and the broad principles governing its application or exclusion in the construction or administration of statutes and the exercise of judicial or administrative powers by an authority or tribunal.

7. The phrase "natural justice" is not capable of a static and precise definition. It cannot be imprisoned in the straight-jacket of a cast-iron formula. Historically, 'natural justice' has been used in a way which implies the existence of moral principles of self-evident and unarguable truth. Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. Being means to an end and not an end in themselves, it is not possible to make an exhaustive catalogue of such rules. But two fundamental maxims of natural justice are pre-eminently necessary to ensure that the law is applied impartially, objectively and fairly. Described in the form of Latin tags these twin principles are, u audi alteram partem1 and v nemo judex in re sua2.

8. The first principle is a highly effective rule devised by the Courts to ensure that a statutory authority arrives at a just decision and it is calculated to act as a healthy check on the abuse or misuse of power. Hence its reach should not be narrowed and its applicability circumscribed. The purpose of this rules is to prevent miscarriage of justice. This principle when conjoins with the maxim 'nem judex in re sua' these constitute the basic elements of a fair hearing as enshrined in Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, for fair trial and justice which is not the preserve of any particular class of people or institution, but is shared in common by everyone.

9. Moreover, various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and for that matter in other various legal systems over the world have accepted the application of principles of natural justice to domestic administrative tribunals and specially the authorities which are discharging quasi-judicial or administrative functions. Guidance derived from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in PLD 2004 Supreme Court 441 (Messrs Dewan Salman Fiber Ltd. and others v. Government of N-W.F.P., through Secretary, Revenue Department, Peshawar and others).

10. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others v. Muhammad Khurshid (2021 SCMR 369) was pleased to held: "Any proceeding arising out of equity could not be decided without providing opportunity of hearing. Court ought to follow the principle of audi alteram partem and due process which were basis of administration of justice, especially when any order, if passed, might affect the rights of the entity not party to the proceedings."

11. In view of the dicta laid down by the august Supreme Court and as mandated in the Constitution of Pakistan under Articles 2-A, 4 and 10-A, adherence to the principles of natural justice by the authority would normally depends upon the following: a. There should be proper application of mind and scrutiny of the records before it, by the authority to enable it to record its satisfaction in terms of the law on the subject. b. It should pass a speaking order which would at least prima-facie show that the authority concerned has applied its mind to the various contentions or points of determination raised before it. c. No one should be condemned unheard and Principle of audi alteram partem is read in every statute as its part if right of hearing has not been specifically provided therein.

12. In this case, there is no denial of the fact that the explanation letter and show-cause notice have been issued by the single person i.e. respondent No.4 and thereby he himself acted as complainant and a judge, without any inquiry into the allegations against petitioner and without affording him any opportunity of personal audience. Hence, without touching other merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to send the matter back to the respondent No.4 to conduct a proper inquiry into the allegations against petitioner, if so desired, and then decide the case after applying his mind dispassionately to a fair analysis of the charges and defense and pass a speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of ninety days from the date of receiving this Judgment. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is reinstated into service and he will be entitled for current salaries, however, his back benefits will be subject to the outcome of inquiry. This petition is admitted and allowed in the aforementioned terms. Office shall communicate the copy of this judgment to respondent No.4 for compliance. UN/32/P Petition allowed. 1 let the other side be heard. 2 no one is a judge in his own case.