' KH. IMTIAZ AHMAD, J.-This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been filed with the prayer that the impugned Order No,98/UMC dated 10-2-2010 be set aside and the petitioner's result be ordered to be declared without any further delay.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was a student of B.Sc. Civil Engineering Final Prof: and appeared in the 1st Annual, 2008 Examination and attempted all four papers on specific dates. While he was waiting for result, he received four show-cause notice with regard to the all four papers with the allegations that he was found involved in managing to change of the solved answer book in violation of Regulation No,134 and was called upon to submit his explanation to the above-said charges. He submitted the written reply that he had no knowledge of any said change. He appeared before the Committee as directed by the University on 10-12-2009 and vide order dated 10-2-2010 the Inquiry Committee cancelled his all the four papers and was warned to be careful in future. However, he was given the chance to re- appear in the said papers. In this back-ground, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Parawise comments of respondents were called, which has been submitted.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the charge was vague and that there is no evidence that the petitioner had changed the answer sheet or smuggled the answer sheet. He placed reliance upon the cases-law reported as PLD 1970 Lahore 811, PLD 1978 Lahore 972, PLD 1981 SC 176, 2009 CLC 112 and 2007 M LD 282. He further contended that the decision was provisional and so no final decision was made and thus his papers have been wrongly cancelled by the University.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent University argued the same points as maintained in the parawise comments and also produced the record of the University to show the change of answer sheets.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. The report of the Inquiry Committee is annexed with the parawise comments and the background of it was that during BA/BSc Annual Examination, 2009, a bundle of 250 answer books bearing Serial No,708001-708250 was stolen from a room of Government College, Mian Channu and F.I.R. No,139/2009 was registered in the City Police Station Mian Channu. It was suspected that the stolen answer books might be used and eight answer books of B.Sc. Civil Engineering, Final Prof, First Annual Examination, 2008 were reported by different source of information to have changed after having dispatched by the Chief Secrecy Officer and perforated part in each of the case does not match with the answer book. Moreover, the Handwriting of the Institution number on the title page and perforated parts do not match. The Committee after examining the original answer books came to the conclusion that the answer books have been changed somewhere after having dispatched by the Chief Secrecy Officer. The matter has actually been reported by the Federal Examiners, who was the first person to receive the answer books after dispatch. It was also noted that the batch number printed at the foot of the back-title of answer books is the same as of those which were stolen from Government College, Mian Channu. It was also observed that the answer books were changed when the Chief Secrecy Officer wrapped the bundles of answer books and handed over the same to the Staff of the Secrecy Branch who packed and sealed and then was sent to the external examiner in different ways including by post, though special messenger, personal collection by the external examiner. The Committee further concluded that the charges levelled against each of the candidates were established and since the channel of malpractice could not be determined unless the case of thievery of the bundle of answer books from Government College Mian Channu is not concluded and independent inquiry is conducted to explore where and how the genuine answer books are replaced, so the interim decision was made for the cancellation of the answer book but they were provisionally allowed to re-appear in the examination if qualifies otherwise.
8. The original record has also been perused, which also shows that the external examiner had also reported that he had received the bundle of answer books without seal and was opened. I have also gone through the original answer sheets and the papers detached from the said answer sheet. It is also to be mentioned here that the person who entered the fictitious number on the detached papers and on the answer sheet also informed that the same was not in his hand writing. There is yet another important aspect of the case that before detaching the papers from the original answer sheet, the lines are drawn in zigzag shape on both papers and if now the detach paper is attached with the answer sheet, the zigzag lines also do not correspond with each other. This fact also clearly shows that the answer sheet has been changed. Thus after going through the record, it appears that the University has strictly proceeded in accordance with law and even had made the favourable decision in favour of the petitioner by allowing him to appear in the examination. The cases-laws cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable. In the present case, after examining the record prima facie the stand taken by the University appears to be quite logical and in accordance with law.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition has no force and the same stands dismissed. 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.