CH. SHAHID SAEED, J. --- The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.1.2011 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by way of which the petitioner was expelled from College roles for the period of two calendar years and it was further ordered that the petitioner will not be allowed to enter College/Hostel premises during this period.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was admitted in MBBS course in Quaid-i-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur and now he is a student of New Final Year. That earlier due to some mis- understanding between the students and administration of college, some crises arose and about 28 students were expelled from the roles of college, therefore, the said students including the petitioner have filed Writ Petition No. 4572-2010 before this Court challenging the expulsion order, the matter was settled and the impugned order was set aside by this Court vide order dated 23.9.2010. That to take revenge of the previous incident the college administration instigated Muhammad Sabir respondent No. 4 against the petitioner and upon his complaint th disciplinary committee respondent No. 3 expelled the petitioner from college roles for the period of two calendar years. It was further ordered that the petitioner will not be allowed to enter into college/hostel premises during this period. Feeling aggrieved by the said order petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No. 4 has submitted an application before disciplinary committee about the compromise but the respondent No. 2 has not considered the compromise between the petitioner and respondent No. 4. Further submits that the disciplinary committee has not provided an opportunity to the petitioner to defend the matter and the impugned order is based upon mala fide and have been passed due to the previous grudge of the administration against the petitioner. That the carrier of the petitioner is at stack, his MBBS course is near to complete, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 being teachers of the institution should have to exercise their parental jurisdiction but the impugned order itself shows that the petitioner has been punished harshly. Learned counsel further maintains that. Disciplinary Committee of the Institution has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter because the alleged occurrence took place in the emergency Ward of the hospital and the administration of the hospital could take action against the petitioner. Lastly learned counsel states that petitioner is ready to tender his unconditional apology before the respondents, therefore, his case be considered sympathetically.
4. On the other hand, learned AAG duly assisted by learned counsel the respondents states that petitioner is a habitual offender. He has awarded punishments a number of times. Further submits that he is incorrigible person, who has polluted the peaceful atmosphere of the college and the hospital and deserves no sympathy; the petitioner has been given full opportunity of hearing and during the proceedings he confessed his guilt, therefore, the order passed by the disciplinary committee is in accordance with law.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. From the perusal of record it reveals that petitioner got admission in MBBS on 9.12.2005. Initially when the petitioner was in 2nd year of MBBS he was fined Rs. 500/- and put him on probation for a period of one year due to his involvement in fighting in hostel. Muhammad Munir father of petitioner also filed an affidavit to the effect that his son will not indulge in any unlawful activities. In the year 2008, petitioner again found involved in fighting and forming gang to attack each other with deadly weapons due to which on 14.1.2008 the petitioner was expelled from the hostel and he was disallowed to enter in the hostel and market of the institution. On 8.10.2008 again the College Disciplinary Committee found the petitioner guilty of organizing physical assault on a fellow student and having unbecoming behaviour as a student and also teasing a fellow female student and he was again expelled from college Rolls for one calendar year. Thereafter on the mercy appeal of the petitioner the principal while taking a lenient view his punishment was waived of and he was put on probation for a period of two calendar for good behaviour. Muhammad Munir father of the petitioner again filed an affidavit with the assurance that his son will not indulge in any lawful activities in future. Then again on the complaint made by incharge watch and ward petitioner was again expelled from the college for one calendar year on 19.2.2009. He was also debarred from entering the college premises and not to be accommodated in the college hostels during the remaining academic stay. He again filed mercy appeal and the Academic Council of the .
Institution in its meeting held on 16.1.2010 waived of his punishment and allowed him to appear in 2nd professional MBBS examination with the condition that he will not be allowed to reside in the hostel. Again on 14.9.2010 an F.I.R. Was registered against the petitioner at P.S. Cantt. u/Ss.
365/324/186/353, 34/427, 148/149, PPC and 7, ATA and he was expelled from the college roll for a period of five calendar years on the following charges:--
(1) Attacking Principal and the teachers' residences.
(2) Attacking principal office.
(3) Damaging Government property.
(4) Insulting the teachers and other support staff.
(5) Blacking the working of indoor and outdoor patient departments.
(6) Locking the college premises and hindering the Government officials in their performance of duties.
(7) Stopping interested students to attend their classes.
(8) Overall he brought bad name to the institution and created problems for smooth running of the college administration.
The said punishment was set aside by this Court vide order dated 23.9.2010 due to the settlement between the petitioner and the respondents. Now again at sixth time the petitioner has been expelled from college roll for two academic years. Upon the allegation. That he threatened and misbehaved with respondent No: 4.
7.. From perusal of the back history of the petitioner it reveals that throughout of his admission in MBBS petitioner created problems and disturbance in the institution. He remained a symbol of terror in the institution. Petitioner has been found repeatedly involved in very serious offences of moral turpitude within;the vicinity of his institution. He has committed a number of criminal acts against his academic staff. In result thereof he was expelled so many times from the college rolls but he did not try to amend his conduct. He is nuisance in real sense. So to provide all sort of safeguard to the students and maintain the discipline according to the set standard he was liable to be expelled from the institution. I am of the considered view that the step taken by the Disciplinary Committee to create good atmosphere, peace of stability in the institution, his explusion for two years is very much appropriate, so that no sort of terror and evil ,activities created by him should be prevailed. It is pertinent to mention here that so many times the petitioner has tried to outrage the modesty of girls students. One Qurat-ul-Ain Riaz Sipra who is the fellow student of petitioner has filed a Writ Petition No. 1324/2011 which is pending before this Court for 31.3.2011 in Which she has alleged that due to irresponsible behaviour of the petitioner she intends to migrate to some there college. She has further maintained that due to the terror and panic created by the petitioner in the Quaid-i-Azam Medical College she cannot continue her study in the said college.
Besides the said girl so many other students of the said Institution has the same apprehension. The petitioner is badly injuring the reputation of the Institution by his conduct and behaviour. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by Disciplinary Committee of the Institution.
8. For the foregoing reasons, there is no force in the instant writ petition and the same is dismissed.
However, if the petitioner approaches to the respondents and submits his unconditional apology then the respondents may consider his case sympathetically under the parental jurisdiction. .