1991 PLP 691 (CLC)

Abdul Rehman v. The Collector and D.C. P L D 1964 SC 461 ref. Sagheer Ahmad Qadri for Petitioners Mumtaz Ali Mirza Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2. Sardar Abdul Majeed Khan for Respondent No.3. This writ petition is based on the grievance that the petitioners have been removed from the Examining Body of the National Council for Homeopathy through an ex: parte resolution. As per the allegation of the petitioners, neither they were present when the resolution was passed nor they were given any notice or opportunity to defend themselves.

2. Brief facts of the case are that impugned resolution having been allegedly passed by the Council, the Federal Government acting upon that removed the petitioners from the Examination Body. The bare perusal of the resolution in question brings out that the petitioners were removed for misconduct and irregularities. In other words it clearly had the effect of stigmatization. In the case of Abdul Rehman v. The Collector and D.C. P L D 1964 SC 461, it has been laid down that the provisions of rules of natural justice are to be read into every enactment. In the precedent case Chairman was removed from the local Council. He was held entitled to hearing and to defend his conduct. The position of the present petitioners is not distinguishable from the facts of the above case in material respects. In such a situation, I think ends of justice will be fully met and the requirement of natural justice complied with if the petitioners were to be asked to appear before the appropriate authorities for discovery of truth after due inquiry.

3. One of the questions being raised before this Court by way of Constitutional petition is whether factually the impugned resolution was passed or not. This plea is being raised on the basis that the proceedings of that date do not record passing of such a resolution and that as per the petitioners no such meeting was held. These are' factual things which can properly be gone into by the competent authorities.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has pointed out that in substitution for the petitioners, new members have been nominated on the Examination Body. On my asking it is clarified that members of newly‑constituted Examination Body are also members of the Council for Homeopathy. In the circumstances of this case it is held that the petitioners' removal from office was illegal for non‑conformity with the requirements of rules of natural justice. Since the basic proceedings and resolution are held to be void and non‑existent, any subsequent act will also stand on‑no better footing.

5. The case is, therefore, remanded to the Federal Government for taking fresh proceedings in accordance with law in the course of which it will look into the factual controversies, allow opportunity to both the parties to defend themselves and to raise any plea in their favour.

6. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. M.B.A./H‑194/1, Case remanded.