'MALIK SAEED EJAZ, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a student of III profession of Pharm-D Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University at Multan. He was issued a show cause notice by respondent No,3 through Letter No,273/UMC dated 1-11-2007 that on 10-10-2007 in paper--III Pharm-D 2nd profession 1st Annual 2007 Examination, he used an additional answer sheet No,376969 on which relevant material was written, recovered from his possession by Invigilating Staff and as such he was found guilty of smuggling the additional answer books in the examination hall in violation of Regulations Nos.14 and 18. He was directed by respondent No,3 to appear before the Disciplinary Committee in that regard. The petitioner replied the above said show notice and appeared before respondent No,2, who after having heard his reply obtained signature of the petitioner on a blank paper and directed him to leave his office saying that he was exonerated from the case. Thereafter the petitioner came to know that he was disqualified for a period of three years from passing 1st Annual Examination, 2007 and from appearing in any university examination till II-A/2009 through letter dated 9-2-2008. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No,1, who, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner dismissed the same through letter dated 15-4-2008.
3. Through the instant petition, petitioner has assailed both the orders dated 9-2-2008 and 15-4- 2008 on the ground that Regulation No,14 under which the petitioner had been charged and disqualified for three years to appear in future examination of the university, does not attract to the case of the petitioner and he has been wrongly punished/disqualified by the respondents.
4. Learned counsel submits that provisions of Regulations Nos.14 and 18, under which the petitioner has been punished/disqualified, do not C attract to the case of the petitioner. Further submits that there is no eyewitness as to the smuggling the answer book in the examination hall. The charge for smuggling in the answer book was levelled without collecting any evidence to connect the petitioner with such allegation. Lastly, it is submitted that there was no direct evidence against the petitioner for smuggling in the answer sheet, as the Disciplinary Committee has failed to collect any evidence to establish such allegation against the petitioner and on the basis of mere presumptions, the impugned orders have been passed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that additional answer sheet No,376969 was smuggled in the examination hall by the petitioner when he appeared in Paper III(D-Pharm) 2nd Profession 1st Annual 2007 Examination and as such, he violated the provisions of Regulation No,14. Lastly, it is submitted that Disciplinary Committee of the University has provided full opportunity to the petitioner to explain his position. As such, the impugned orders have been passed in a legal manner and no violation of any rules and regulations has been made by the respondents.
6. After considering the arguments and having gone through the record, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner appeared in Paper-III, Pharm-D 2nd Profession 1st Annual 2007 and the alleged answer sheet was recovered from the petitioner when he was in examination hall. During the inquiry, it was found that the said answer sheet was issued to one Umar Farooq when he appeared in the examination in 2007. During arguments, learned counsel for the respondents as well as the Dealing Officer, present in Court, have failed to satisfy the Court, on the point, whether the inquiry officer ascertained as to how the alleged answer sheet went to the hands of the petitioner, whether it was provided to him in the examination hall by any invigilator or the same was brought out by the petitioner from outside. Such point was necessary to be inquired into in order to determine the violation of the Regulation No,14. If it was proved that the answer sheet was smuggled in, then the case of the petitioner would fall in Regulation No,14 and if the answer sheet was provided to him in the examination hall, then the allegation for smuggling in the answer sheet would not be proved. In the instant case, the inquiry report is silent on this point. As such, the punishment given for violating Regulation No,14 is not correct.
7. Apart from the above discussion, in my view, the educational institutions are like mothers and students take birth from the wombs of such institutions. It is the primary duty of the student to maintain the reputation of the institution by adopting good behaviour, honest attitude towards his assignment and to abide by the rules and regulations of the institution. On the other hand, the institutions should also give treatment to its students like mother and if a student commits any mistake and violates the rules and regulation of the institution, then punishment is to be given, if necessary, to the extent that his career is not demolished. As such before awarding any punishment, an inquiry is to be held with full care and caution to safeguard the future of the student. In our society, no parents ever kick out his child even having criminal attitude, behaviour and bad habits.
8. In the instant case, no doubt the petitioner was caught redhandedly in the examination hall with an additional answer sheet, which was issued to another student of D-Pharm during the examination held in 2007 but during the inquiry it was to be proved that the said answer sheet was smuggled in. It is possible that the same was given to the petitioner by some one in the examination hall. During the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents as the litigation officer, present in Court, failed to satisfy the Court as to from which source the said answer sheet reached the hands of the petitioner, whether the same was handed over to him in the examination hall or the same was brought by him from outside.
9. During arguments, learned counsel for the respondents as well as the litigation officer concerned have admitted that the answer sheet is always given by obtaining signature of the candidate but if the candidate returns the answer sheet without using it, the signatures are not obtained either from the candidate or from the person to whom the additional sheet is returned.
10. The inquiry report is also silent on the point as to how many additional sheets were issued to the candidates and out of the same how many sheets were returned un-used. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the Invigilator or the Superintendent/Deputy Superintendent might have retained such additional sheet with them without showing the same as having been returned in order to achieve some financial gains by providing such sheets to the candidate. As such Regulation No,14 for smuggling in the additional answer sheet is not proved. However, the answer sheet in question was recovered from the possession of the candidate but the source from where and by whom it was transmitted to the candidate is not proved. Hence, the case of using unfair means is made out against the petitioner.
11. Taking the above circumstances into consideration, I am of the view the punishment imposed upon the petitioner under Regulation No,14 is unwarranted, as observed above, no case for smuggling in the answer sheet is made out against the petitioner but a case for using unfair means is proved. The impugned order is modified accordingly and punishment/disqualification of the petitioner is altered to one year and the petitioner shall remain debarred from appearing in the examination for one year on account of using unfair means. He shall be allowed to appear in the forthcoming examination, which is stated to be held in the month of September, 2008.
12. This petition stands disposed of accordingly.