' 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. When he was getting education in the said institution, a show-cause notice through letter No,47/UMC dated 17-1-2008 from respondent No,3 was received to him, by which the allegation levelled against him was that on 23-4-2007 in Paper- II Pharm-D 1st Profession IInd Annual 2007 Examination, the petitioner received additional answer- sheet No,376969 and the same was smuggled out by him from the examination hall and said answer-sheet was used by Muhammad Umair Mirza bearing Roll No,99, Pharm-D in 2nd Profession 1st Annual, 2007 Examination. As such, the said answer-sheet was recovered from Muhammad Umair in the examination hall when the same was being used by him. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Disciplinary Committee in that regard. The petitioner, while denying the allegation, appeared before respondent No,2 but he was surprised to know that the violation of Regulation No,14, he had been disqualified for a period of three years from passing IInd Annual Examination, 2006. He was also debarred to appear in any university examination till 1-A/2009 vide decision of Disciplinary Committee dated 9-2-2008.
2. Petitioner, being aggrieved by the order, dated 9-2-2008 preferred an appeal before respondent No,1, who, without affording an opportunity to him, dismissed the same vide 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 under clause (b) of Regulation No,14, the matter was to be reported to the police for smuggling out the answer book but such mandatory provision was not complied with by respondent No,2. Further submits that the petitioner appeared in the month of April, 2007, in second Annual Examination, 2006, when the alleged answer sheet which was shown to be smuggled out was received by the petitioner but the charge for smuggling out such answer sheet was levelled in January, 2008 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 out the answer sheet from the examination hall, as the Disciplinary Committee has failed to collect any evidence to establish such allegation against the petitioner and on the basis of mere presumption of receiving such answer sheet, the impugned orders have been passed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that additional answer sheet No,376969 was received by the petitioner when he appeared in paper-II (D-Phram) 1st Profession Second Annual, 2007 Examination but instead of returning the same to the Invigilator, the petitioner smuggled out the said sheet and then he handed over the same to one Muhammad Umair Mirza who used such answer sheet in second Profession 1st Annual, 2007 Examination and was caught red-handed in the examination hall and such sheet was recovered from him. Separate proceedings were also initiated against Muhammad Umair Mirza for smuggling in of such sheet and he was also debarred for three years to appear in any university examination and 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 alleged answer sheet was received by the petitioner when he appeared in the aforesaid examination but there is no evidence available on record to establish the allegation of smuggling out of such answer sheet, as there is no eye-witness who saw the petitioner going out from examination hall while taking the additional sheet with him. It is also an admitted fact that no evidence is available on record for transmission of such answer sheet to the other candidate.
7. During the arguments learned counsel of the respondents as well as the concerned dealing Officer, present in Court, have admitted that additional answer sheet is always given to the candidate by obtaining his signature but if the candidate returns the same without using it, the signatures are not obtained either by the candidate or the person to whom the additional sheet is returned.
8. The inquiry report is silent on the point as to how many additional sheets were issued on that date to the candidates and out of them how many were returned unused. As such, possibility cannot be ruled out that the Invigilator or the Superintendent or the other staff in examination hall 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 sheet to the candidate. Thus, both the impugned orders have been passed in a hasty manner without collecting evidence against the petitioner and the basis of mere presumptions.
9. In view of the above, the respondents have failed to establish the allegation of smuggling out of additional answer sheet against the petitioner beyond any doubt. As such, the instant writ petition is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.