Find a Lawyer

DR. MASROOR ELAHI versus UNIVERSITY OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE

h CH (E) and 9 (c) ??? Charge of misconduct in publication of research paper - CL8 (e) \\ policy under the scope of the Higher Education Commission's Anti-Discrimination Policy () CL, owned by the inquiry and penalty ced. \\\), the Vice Chancellor CF University had the responsibility to provide the author with the opportunity to justify original concepts and research works under investigation, and to provide the same author whose papers In the present case, no communication with the other author of the dissertation was considered - in order to accuse the complainant and / or to justify the complaint to the complainant. Yes, and the author was not given a chance to have a personal hearing, which published the dissertation, much like the petitioner's pending paper, therefore, under Clause 9 (c) of the policy, Philosophy CL CL 8 (e) ), The plagiarism committee may ask for comment on the claim by the editor on theft. f (Journal) or Program Chair (conference proceedings) and referee of one or both papers - such comments were not sought by the Standing Committee (\\\ Committee by) in the present case (although this Was) that at any stage during the proceedings of the University Syndicate, the applicant was not approved a reasonable order after its application for the reasons for the notification of the penalty to be handled. Thus the mind has violated the principle of granting ownership of the procedure to the circumstances ??? The prohibition notification to impose fines on the applicant was set aside - in accordance with the constitutional petition allowed [p 386 388, 389] A, B,

PLD 2017 Lahore 381

Before Jawed Hassan, J .

Dr. MASROOR ELAHI—Petitioner 

versus

UNIVERSITY OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE and others—Respondents

Writ Petition No. 13239 of 2016. decided on 8th February, 2017.

(a) Higher Education Commission Plagiarism Policy—

—Ch. S(e) & 9(c)™.Allegation of plagiarism in publication of research papers—Inquiry and penalty—Procedural propriety, principle of— Scope—Under CL8(e) of the Higher Education Commission Plagiarism Policy (''Policy"), the Vice-Chancellor cf the University was under obligation to provide opportunity to the author under investigation to justify original concepts and research work and a similar opportunity was also to be provided to the author whose paper was deemed to have been plagiarised and/or the complainant to justify the complaint—In the present case, no communication with the other author of the research paper had been annexed, and no opportunity of personal hearing had been provided to the author, who had published the paper, similar to the plagiarised paper of the petitioner, therefore, there had been a violation of CL8(e) of the Folicy—Under Cl.9(c) of the Policy, the Plagiarism Standing Committee may solicit comments to the claim from the Editor in Chief (of a journal) or Program Chair (of conference proceedings) and referees of either or both papers—Such comments had not been solicited by the Plagiarism Standing Committee ("Committee") in the present case (although it was not obligatory to solicit the same)—Further at no stage during the proceedings of the Syndicate of the University the petitioner was infÓrm;ed about the cogent reasons for the notification imposing penalties on the petitioner—Syndicate had not passed a well-reasoned order after application of its mind thus has violated the principle of providing the petitioner with procedural propriety—Impugned notification imposing penalties on the petitioner was set aside in circumstances—Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. [p. 386. 388,389] A, B, F & I

(b) Higher Education Commission Plagiarism Policy—

—Cl. 11 — Allegation of plagiarism in publication of research papers—Penalty—'Ban on the reasercher of foreign travel relating to research for a period of one year'—Legality—Clause 11 of the Higher Education Commission Plagiarism outlined the penalties for plagiarism

for teachers, researchers, staff and students—Penalty of ’ban on foreign travel relating to research 9 had not been provided in CL 11—Constitutional petition was allowed and notification imposing penalty of haw on foreign travel was set aside accordingly, [p. 387] C & D

c

(c) Higher Education Commission Plagiarism Policy—

—Preamble—Constitution of Pakistan, Art, 199—Constitutional petition—Maintainability—Higher Education Commission Plagiarism Policy was statutory in nature, hence any action taken under the said

policy may be challenged under the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court—Constitutional petition was held to be maintainable accordingly, [p. 388] E

Shafique Ahmed Khan and others v. MESCOM through Chairman, Islamabad and others PLD 2016 SC 377 ref.

(d) Civil service—

—Disciplinary proceedings—Inquiry—Public functionaries, duty of— Public functionaries were bound to decide cases of their subordinates after application of mind with cogent reasons within reasonable time— Further, public functionaries were obliged to act within four corners of mandate of the Constitution and the law. [p. 388] G & H

Government of Pakistan and others v. Farheen Rashid 2011 SCMR 1 ref..

Hafiz Tariq Naseem for Petitioner.

Syed Bilal Haider for Respondents Nos.l to 3 Ashfaq Ahmad Kharral, Assistant Advocate-General.

jobs for advocates from Jehangira lawyer