Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. 308 of 1984, decided on 11th April, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 26-2-1984 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 4309 of 1983).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--

-- Art. 185 (3)-Regulations for Conduct of Examinations (Univer sity of Punjab), Regln. 14-Educational institutions-Respondent candidate found guilty of forging his result of examination and disqualified for three years-High Court in writ petition setting aside disqualification order passed by University Authorities-Leave to appeal granted to consider submissions (i) that Disciplinary Com mittee based its finding as to guilt of respondent on fact that record of University had been tampered with raising a presumption as to guilt of candidate, (ii) that respondent was heard at every stage, and (iii) that validity of finding of such a parental authority was not to be reviewed by a judicial forum on same norms tin which, findings of a judicial or quasi judicial authority were liable to be scrutinized-Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9.

University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad P L D 1965 S C 90 ; Disciplinar1 Committee of University of the Punjab, Lahore v. Malik Abdul Majid 1971 Law Notes (S C) 265 : Rahat Siddiqi v. Board of lntermediate and Secondary, Education, Lahore 1977 S C M R 213 ; Akhtar Ali v. University of the Punjab 1979 S C: M R 549 ; Shaukat Ali v, Controller of Examination, University of' the Punjab 1981 S C M R 364 ; Ahmad v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology P L D 1981 S C 464 and Masood Pervaiz v. Disciplinary Committee, University of the Punjab 1982 S C M R 1084 cited but not examined.

Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Ahmad Saeed Kirmani, Advocate Supreme Court, Malik Maqbool Elahi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Res pondent.

Date of hearing : 11th April, 1984.

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J

.-The respondent took the Annual LL. B. Examination of 1978 and failed in Paper III. He appeared in the Sup plementary LL. B. Examination to clear the said paper held in June, 1981. During the scrutiny of the results, it was found that whereas in the award-list, the respondent was shown to have secured- 14 marks in Paper III in the result-sheet 45 marks were entered against his name. On the detection of this fabrication, disciplinary action was initiated against the respondent, resulting in the issuance of a charge-sheet/show-cause notice, dated 5-9-1982 to him. The respondent filed his reply to the charge sheet. He was thereafter, heard by the Disciplinary Committee in person, which came to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of entering deliberate previous arrangement to cheat in the examination by getting his result forged with the connivance of the University staff in order to get benefit therefrom. He was, accordingly, held guilty under Regulation No. 14 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of the examination and was disqualified for a period of three years vide order dated 21-10-1982. Simultaneously, a University official, involved in the aforesaid malpractice, was also proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Statutes of the University and action taken against him thereunder.

The respondent filed an appeal petition before the Vice-Chancellor and after hearing the respondent remanded the case to the Disciplinary Committee for re-consideration. The Disciplinary Committee, on remand, again considered the case and afforded the respondent an opportunity of hearing but again came to the same conclusion, to which it had arrived earlier and re-confirmed its previous decision which was conveyed to the respondent vide letter dated 10-2-1983. The respondent ostensiby accepted the verdict of the University authorities, as conveyed to him by letter dated 10-2-1983, but some seven months later started to re-agitatate the matter by moving the Chancellor of the University of the Punjab under section 61 of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973. The Chancellor was pleased to reduce the period of disqualification to two years on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor.

Despite the above concession, the respondent filed a Writ Petition on 9-10-1983 before the Lahore High Court to challenge the order of disqualification passed by the Disciplinary Committee. However, the last order passed by the Chancellor, whereby the period of disqualification was reduced to two years, was not challenged herein. the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court accepted the writ petition by his judgment dated 26-2-1984, now impugned before us, wherein he expressed the view that the authorities responsible for taking disciplinary action are supposed to act on some material spelling out the guilt of the person before proceeding to condemn and punish him and as a minimum require ments of fairness he should be given reasonable opportunity to make any relevant statement putting forward his case and should be able through such statement to correct or controvert any relevant statement brought forward to his prejudice. In the instant case, according to the learned Judge, despite the fact that the respondent had all along insisted that the Disciplinary Committee should specify or name the person with whom he was alleged to be in league, the Disciplinary Committee did not provide him with the desired information although an inquiry had already been initiated against the University staff and the Committee must have been aware of the Members of the staff, who were involved therein. The absence of this information resulted in the respondent be ing placed in a situation from where he was not able to controvert the presumption that the Committee has raised against him. In these circumstances the respondent could not be said to have been given a fair opportunity to defend himself. Consequently, the principles of na tural justice could not be said to have been fully met in his case before condemning him. Reliance was placed on this Court's decision in Uni versity of Dacca v. Zakir Anmad (P L D 1965 S C 90).

In support of this petition for leave to appeal, Ch. Muhammad Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the rule laid down in University, of Dacca's case has been considerably modified by the decisions of this Court in its subsequent cases, namely, Discipli nary, Committee of University of the Punjab, Lahore v. Malik Abdul Majid (1971. Law Notes (S C) 265), Rabat Siddiqi v. Board of Intermediate and . S'econdarv Education, Lahore (1977 S C M R 213 ), Akhtar Ali v. University of the Punjab (1979 S C M R 549), Shaukat Ali v. Controller of Examinations, University of the Punjab (1981 S C M R 364), Ahmad v. Vice-Chancellor, University of 1snginetring and Technology (P L D 1981 S C 464) and Masood Pervaiz v. Disciplinary Committee, University of the Punjab (1982 S C M R 1084).

He furth submits that in the instant case, the Disciplinary Com mittee based its finding, as to the guilt of the respondent, on the fact that the record of the University had been tampered with and the res pondent was the beneficiary of the said tampering. This raised a pre sumption, as to the guilt of the candidate and in a case like the present no other material was required to establish his guilt because. It was not possible to produce the direct evidence of some witnesses to state that the tampering with the record was done in their presence at the behest of the candidate. It was further submitted that the inquiry in such cases is of a domestic nature, by an authority exercising parental authority. The respondent was heard at every stage and the persons inquiring into the matter were acting in good faith having no malice or bias against the respondent. The validity of the finding of such a parental authority is not to be reviewed by a judicial forum on the same norms, on which the findings of a judicial or quasi-judicial authority -are liable to be scrutinized.

These submissions require further consideration. Leave is, accord ingly, granted.

The impugned judgment of the High Court shall remain suspend ed meanwhile.

The appeal shall be made ready on the present record, with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any and put up for hearing as quickly as possible.

S.Q. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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