2011 PLP 1767 (MLD)

IJAZ AHMAD, J.

The petitioner passed his LL.B. examination in the year 2006. The degree was issued by Bahauddin Zakariyya University (BZU) Multan on 15-5-2007. Thereafter, he was enrolled as an advocate with the Punjab Bar Council. The petitioner was appointed as Consultant in Ministry of Information and Technology vide Notification dated 31-12-2009, issued by Cabinet Secretariat Establishment Division. The FIA authorities while conducting inquiries in the "Hajj Scam" had a clue that the petitioner was possessing a fake LL.B. degree. A criminal case vide F.I.R. No. 1 of 2011 dated 15-2-2011 at Police Station FIA/SIU, Islamabad under sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 109, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, No.II 1947 was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a written application before respondents Nos.1 and 2 for holding an internal inquiry. The petitioner received a letter dated 2-3-2011 issued by BZU requiring the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 14-3-2011 and also to file a written reply to the charge sheet. The petitioner made an application before the Deputy Controller BZU, Multan for being provided certain documents.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the required copies are not being supplied to the petitioner; that the show cause notice reads that the petitioner had been found guilty of deliberate previous arrangements to cheat in the examination; that the language of show cause notice betrays the prejudice and predetermination of the disciplinary committee to adjudicate against the petitioner; that at least two members of the committee are highly prejudiced and biased against the petitioner and they want to send the petitioner to the gallows first and then to frame the charge against him. He prays that at least Malik Muneer Hussain the Controller of Examination, who has produced the record against the petitioner before the FIA authorities and has also made a statement against the petitioner shall be removed from the committee. Similarly, Dr. Professor Ejaz Ahmed Chairman Department of Physics also being personal against the petitioner be removed from the Committee and that the original documents already having been handed over to the FIA authorities, therefore, the petitioner would not be able to defend himself.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contends that the petitioner will be given fair chance to place his version before the committee and will be provided an opportunity to defend the accusation against him; that the wording of the show-cause notice dated 2-3-2011 can at the maximum be termed as poorly worded. None of the members of the Committee nurses any grudge and bias against the petitioner; that the Controller of Examination is the Ex-Officio member of each disciplinary committee and the Deputy Controller of the examination is to act as the Secretary of the Committee; that the photocopies of the record available with the respondents have been handed over to the petitioner and that on the day of hearing, the original record will be requisitioned and will be available for the Committee to confront the petitioner with it and for the petitioner to refer to it in his defence.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record.

5. As far the language of notice dated 2-3-2011 is concerned, there is no cavil that it is not happily worded. The weakness of the language of the notice does not lead to conclusion that the members of the Committee are biased, pre-determined and prejudiced against the petitioner. In order to make the proceedings, transparent and in order to remove lurking fear in the mind of the petitioner, the Vice Chancellor of the University shall appoint a Deputy Controller Examination to act as a member of the Committee. Dr. Professor Ejaz Ahmed Chairman Department of Physics, shall also be substituted by another member. The respondent University should requisition the original record regarding the examination of the petitioner from the FIA authorities, so that the petitioner should have a chance to examine the same in original and the members of the Committee will have a chance to confront the petitioner with the original record which is the requirement of law. The petitioner shall be given a fair chance to defend himself. The disciplinary proceedings should be conducted in a fair and transparent manner. The prayer for declaring the report dated 17-2-2011, illegal and void ab initio and to restrain the respondents from proceeding further cannot be acceded to and the required writ cannot be issued as it would be tantamount to thwarting process before it would take a motion. In this regard, I seek guidance from case-laws cited as "2010 CLC 1765" titled Iftikhar Ahmed Khan and 2 others v. University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir through Vice-Chancellor and others and "2000 SCMR 201" titled Messrs Amin Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax and 2 others. This petition partly succeeds as observed above. H.B.T./Z-29/L Order accordingly.