P L D 1967 Dacca 800 (PLP)

SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑Upon an application under Article 98 of the Constitution, the petitioner obtained this Rule Nbi upon the respondents, namely, the Principal, Government College, Sylhet and the Deputy Commissioner, Ex Officio Presi dent of the Governing Body, Government College, Sylhet, to show cause why the order of expulsion passed against the petitioner should not be declared as having been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petitioner was a second year B.Sc. student of Sylhet Government College in August 1966. On the 18th of August 1966 the petitioner received the following notice from the Principal vide Annexure `A' to the petition No. 6(7) C. dated 16‑8‑

66. From:‑The Principal, Government College, Sylhet. To:‑M. Hafizur Rahman, 2nd year B.Sc. Pass Roll No.

81. The President of the Governing Body of this College is convinced that you indulged in highly prejudicial and objectionable activities while the President of Pakistan was delivering speech in a public meeting at Sylhet on the 8th August 1966. You are directed to show cause why drastic disciplinary action should not be taken against you for your activities as stated above. Your explanation in writing should reach me within a week of receipt of this letter. (Sd.) S. Choudhury, Principal Govt. College, Sylhet." In response to this notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on the 22nd of August 1966. The explanation (Annexure `B' to the petition) is as follows:‑ "To The Principal, Government College, Sylhet. Sir, On being called upon to show cause why drastic disciplinary action should not be taken against me for my alleged activities ‑at the time when the President of Pakistan was delivering speech in a public meeting on 8‑8‑66, 1 beg to state as follows:‑ (1) That the notice does not disclose the particulars and nature of prejudicial and objectionable activities and as such I do not understand how the President of the Governing Body of the College is convinced that I indulged in highly prejudicial and objectionable activities while the President of Pakistan was delivering a speech in a public meeting on 8‑8‑66. (2) That I did not go to the place of the public meeting or in its vicinity and as such my indulging in any prejudicial or objectionable activity and not to speak of highly prejudicial and objectionable activities, does not arise. (3) That, to the best of my knowledge, I am an innocent student and I never indulged in any prejudicial or objectionable activities. The allegations against me are false and baseless. I pray therefore that you would be kind enough to exonerate me from the liability of show‑cause notice and drop any further proceeding against me for ends of justice and for which act of kindness I shall as in duty bound, ever pray. I remain, Sir, Your most obedient student, Dated: Sylhet, the 22nd August 1966. (Sd.) M. Hafizur Rahman. Roll 81, 2nd Yr. B.Sc. (Pass)." The petitioner states that on enquiry he came to know that the Deputy Commissioner, Sylhet wrote to the Principal of the, College to expel eleven boys including the petitioner from the College on the allegation that they had indulged in prejudicial and objectionable activities in a public meeting at Sylhet addressed by the President of Pakistan. It has been stated further that, although the Police started a case under section 7(3) of the East Pakistan Public Safety Ordinance, 1958 and Rule 47(5) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 over some incident at the said meeting against some persons some of whom were also arrested on the spot, no such case was ever started against the petitioner. The petitioner has further stated that, in spite of the explanation submitted by him, the Governing Body of the College passed a resolution on the 2nd of September 1966, expelling, among other, the petitioner from the College for one year, and in pursuance of this resolution, the Principal of the College took action by circulating a notice to that effect in the class room on the 3rd of September 1966. It is asserted by the petitioner that the Govern ing Body neither held any enquiry in the matter nor gave any hearing to the petitioner before it passed the impugned resolution. On behalf of the respondents, an affidavit sworn by the Vice -Principal of the College has been put in wherein it has been stated that it was respondent No. 2 (the Deputy Commissioner) who brought to the notice of respondent No. 1 (the Principal) that the petitioner along with other students of the said College had indulged in highly prejudicial and objectionable activities at the aforesaid meeting. This information led to the issue of the show cause notice by respondent No. 1 in response to which the petitioner submitted his explanation which was considered as unsatisfactory. The matter was then placed before the Governing Body of the College at its meeting held on the 2nd of September 1966, and the said body, after having considered the explana tion submitted by the petitioner and a report of the Principal (Respondent No. 1) concerning the activities of the petitioner in the College campus, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been guilty of activities subversive of the State and College discip line and it therefore resolved that the petitioner be expelled from the College for one year with immediate effect. Curiously it has teen further stated in this affidavit that, as the petitioner was a m ember of the unruly mob who had created disorder and disturbance at the said meeting, it was not difficult for him to understand what were the allegations of prejudicial and objectionable activities referred to in the said show‑cause notice. It has been asserted that the petitioner was present at the said public meeting in front of Sylhet Circuit House and in fact he indulged in highly prejudicial and objectionable activities and created disturbance and disorder. It has been further asserted that the show‑cause notice was proper, that it was not necessary to hear the petitioner personally before taking discipli nary action against him, and that the petitioner never prayed for a personal hearing in his explanation. The affidavit proceeds to assert that the Governing Body had sufficient materials before it to justify the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner. The petitioner, in his affidavit‑in‑reply, has reiterated his case in the petition and has denied that he was present at the aforesaid public meeting. Mr. M. A. Rab, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended in the first place, that the alleged show‑cause notice (Annexure `A' to the petition) was no show cause notice at all inasmuch as it left everything vague and did not specify the particulars of the allegations against the petitioner in order to enable him to submit an effective explanation. We agree with this contention. The show‑cause notice which has already been quoted merely states that the petitioner "indulged in highly prejudicial and objectionable activities while the President of Pakistan was delivering speech in a public meeting at Sylhet on the 8th August 1966". The notice makes no mention about the particulars of the act or conduct of the petitioner on the basis of which it was alleged that the petitioner had indulged in highly prejudicial and objectionable activities, and thus the very object of giving a show‑cause notice is defeated. Not having been apprised of the particular act or conduct of the petitioner, he was unable to give an effective explanation. The petitioner, in his explanation, denied that he was present at the meeting or he indulged in the activities attributed to him and stated that, as the notice did not disclose the particulars and nature of prejudicial and objection able activities, he failed to understand how the President of the Governing Body of the College had been convinced that the former had indulged in highly prejudicial and objectionable activities. Prima facie, if the petitioner had been found to be a member of the unruly mob that created disturbances in the said public meeting, he too, should have been arrested or atleast a case similar to the one that had been instituted against some other persons who were alleged to have created disturbances at the meeting should have been started against him as well. The records of the meeting of the Governing Body in which the impugned resolution was passed against the petitioner has been placed before us and we have carefully examined them. We do not find there was any evidence before the Governing Body to show cause that the petitioner was in fact present at the said public meeting. Even the Deputy Commissioner's letter to the Principal does not say that the Deputy Commissioner was present at the meeting and he saw the petitioner indulging in objectionable activities. In these circumstances, we have no other alternative but to hold that the petitioner was never given a show‑cause notice in accordance with law, and, therefore, the very first principle of natural justice, namely, furnishing the petitioner with a show cause notice apprising him of the allegations against him, has been contravened in this case. Mere giving of show‑cause notice is not enough. The petitioner should have been clearly and unequivocally told what he said or did to subject him to the allegation that he indulged in highly prejudicial and objectionable activities. It has next been contended that, on the affidavit of the respondents, it is evident that in addition to the explanation of the petitioner a report submitted by the Principal of the College had also been considered before the impugned resolution expelling the petitioner was passed. The records show that the Principal had presented an adverse report against the petitioner as regards his activities inside the College campus. It is admitted that the peti tioner was never given any opportunity to controvert the e statements made against him in the Principal's report, and the report was never brought to the notice of the petitioner. In this connection, it is well to remember the following observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Dacca University v. Zakir Ahmad (P L D 1965 S C 90). "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." We, therefore, think that there has been a contravention of the second essential principle of natural justice, namely, giving also fair opportunity to the delinquent to meet the charges against him. Furthermore, an examination of the records of the case placed before us, and of the affidavits filed in the case, show that the Deputy Commissioner who is the Chairman of the Governing Body of the College and presided over the crucial meeting of the body had already made up his mind against the alleged prejudicial activities of the petitioner and he had, therefore, ordered that the petitioner should be expelled from the College. On what knowledge or information this order was based, was not stated either in the Deputy Commissioner s letter to the Principal or elsewhere. In these circumstances, it was not unlikely that the Governing Body was influenced by the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner which had been formed ex parte before the date of the meeting. For the reasons stated above, we make the Rule absolute but without costs: We declare that the resolution of the Governing Body dated 2nd September 1966 and the order of the Principal, Government College, Sylhet expelling the petitioner for a period of one year have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. ABDUL HAKIM KHAN, J.‑I agree. S. A. H. Rule made absolute.