Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 4261 of 1983, decided on 20th April, 1986.

---S. 4(r)--Expulsion of student--Such student proceeded against for coercing cafeteria contractor to feed him free and also because of outstanding bill--While awarding punishment, previous conduct of student for which he had already been punished was also taken into account by authorities--Student proceeded against, held, could not be punished twice for same conduct as it would amount to double jeopardy in circumstances.

---Art. 199--Natural justice, principles of--Right of appeal provided in a statute, held, would imply right of hearing--Denial of such right would vitiate validity of order passed as result thereof and being in violation of cardinal principles of natural justice would be struck down.

---Art. 199--University of Agriculture Faisalabad Act (XII of 1973), S.4 (r)--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Expulsion of student being in violation of principles of natural justice and such student having already suffered more than period of punishment awarded to him--Order of Authority was declared to be of no legal effect in constitutional jurisdiction- Case was however, remitted to Authority to consider same after affording opportunity of hearing.

Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa for Petitioner.

Malik Azam Rasoolfor Respondents.

Date of hearing: 20th April, 1986.

This Constitutional Petition is directed against order, dated 23-5-1983 of the Vice-Chancellor, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad whereby he dismissed petitioner's appeal preferred against order, dated 6-7-1982 passed by the Dean, Faculty of Agriculture expelling the petitioner from the University for a period of three years.

2. The petitioner was a student of B.Sc. (Hone.) Agriculture. On 9-2-1982 a complaint was lodged by Cafeteria Contractor against the petitioner and two others alleging therein that he was forced to feed them free. The petitioner had outstanding bill amounting to Rs.567 in that behalf. An inquiry was made and the petitioner had undertaken to clear the amount but he did not pay the same and a second complaint was made by the Cafeteria Contractor against him. It is alleged that the petitioner was given chance to explain his position but of no response. Consequently the Discipline Committee having considered his previous conduct together with the above complaint recommended his expulsion from the University. The Dean, Faculty of Agriculture agreed to the recommendations of the Committee and with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, vide Notification, dated 6-7-1982, expelled the petitioner from the University for a period of three years. On appeal the matter appears to have been referred to the Discipline Committee who after hearing the petitioner recommended rejection of his appeal. The Vice Chancellor on the advice of the Discipline Committee rejected his appeal vide the impugned order. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that all proceedings resulting in his expulsion were mala fide. The petitioner was condemned unheard by the appellate authority. He blindly acted upon the advice of the Discipline Committee. It was also submitted that the petitioner had twice been punished for the alleged misconduct. The next contention. raised was that the petitioner cleared the amount and produced receipt before the University authorities but the same was not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. It was lastly contended that punishment awarded to the petitioner for non-payment of alleged bill to the private contractor was beyond reasonable proportion. The petitioner had already suffered more than the period of punishment and his academic career has been marred at the hands of the respondents for no legal or moral justification.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that petitioner's conduct throughout his stay at the University premises was unbecoming of a normal student. He had been misbehaving and creating indiscipline for which he earned punishments from time to time. He, however, could not controvert the fact that the petitioner was not provided opportunity of hearing by the Vice-Chancellor and that the period of petitioner's expulsion has already expired on 7-7-1985.

5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on the file. As noticed above the petitioner was proceeded against for coercing the Cafeteria Contractor for feeding him free and there was outstanding bill for Rs.567 against him, but while awarding punishment his previous conduct for which he had already been punished was also taken into account by University authorities. He, therefore, could not be punished twice for the same misconduct as it amounted to double jeopardy. Admittedly the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing by the appellate authority and his appeal was dismissed merely on the advice of the Discipline Committee. The right of appeal provided in the statute implied right of hearing. The denial of this tight viated the validity of the impugned order and is liable to be struck down, being in violation of the cardinal principle of natural justice.

As noticed above, the petitioner has already suffered more than the period of punishment awarded to him and he retains a stigma on his academic career.

The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Vice-Chancellor, University of Agricultural, Faisalabad is declared to be of no legal effect, the case is remitted to him for reconsideration of the matter, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

7. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

A . A . Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.