' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, C J.---Through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 the petitioner has sought setting aside the decision of Vice '
Chancellor issued vide Memo dated 22-2-2005, the ex parte decision of the Disciplinary Committee dated 4-6-2002 and subsequent Notification No2BA/BSC Annual Examination, 1995, dated 8-3- 2003. In the same context the petitioner also sought a direction of this Court to allow the petitioner to appear in the M.A. Political Science-(Part-11) Examination.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner has taken his B.A. 1st Annual Examination, 1994 under Roll No16531 as a regular student of Government College, Gujranwala. The result of the petitioner was declared as Eng(L,) AR-0 R.L,. UMC. Thereafter pursuant to a Memo dated 16-51995 received by the petitioner to the effect that he utilized unfair means in paper of English-B he was required to appear before the Disciplinary Committee on 23-5-1995. The petitioner duly appeared before the Disciplinary Committee and inquired 'about the allegations and charge-sheet .But the Disciplinary, Committee without affording, any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner cancelled the result of English. It is further alleged in the petition that the petitioner under some misconception submitted his admission form as a private candidate for B.A. 2nd Annual Examination, 1994 but the petitioner could not appear in that examination due to pendency of unfair means case, though the University had issued Roll No 49171. In the year, 1995 the petitioner submitted his admission form for the B.A. 1st Annual Examination, 1995 to qualify the subject of English. The respondent-University issued Roll No35617 to the petitioner and after qualifying the examination, declared him pass, securing marks 408/800 and the University issued a degree in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of the result of B.A. 1st Annual Examination 1995, the, petitioner joined classes of LL.B in Punjab Law College and qualified the same on 18-12-1999. The respondent- University had issued L.L.B. Degree to the petitioner. After obtaining the result, the petitioner obtained licence from the Punjab Bar Council and since then he is practising at the Bar. Further alleged that on 1-12-2001 F.I.R. No.328 of 2001 under sections 302/109/148/149, P.P.C. Was registered against the petitioner and he was arrested on 6-6-2002. During the detention period, the petitioner submitted his admission form for M.A. Political Science (Part-I) Annual Examination 2003 and the University declared him as pass, securing marks 262/500. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted his admission forth for M.A. Political Science (Part-II) Annual Examination 2004 but the Superintendent District Jail, Sialkot informed the petitioner that Roll Number Slip had not been issued by University of the Punjab due to some discrepancies in the result of B.A. And the petitioner being an under trial prisoner could not inquire into the matter and was deprived to appear in Part-II Examination of Political Science. On 8-11-2004 the petitioner was acquitted of the charges in the criminal case and rushed to the respondent-University to enquire about the non-issuance of Roll Number Slip for M.A. Political Science (Part-II) Examination when it transpired that a charge sheet dated 23-1-2002 was issued whereupon an ex parte decision was taken by the Disciplinary Committee on 4-6-2002. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the decision dated 4-6-2002 passed by the Disciplinary Committee filed representation/appeal before the Vice-Chancellor, University of the Punjab with a prayer that same be set aside but the Vice-Chancellor rejected the representation appeal of the petitioner on 22-2-2005. Hence, this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the decision of the Vice-Chancellor conveyed by the Secretary Disciplinary Committee through the impugned memo dated 22-2-2005 is against the facts and provisions of law. Under section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, every authority is required to dispose of any appeal or representation after providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the respondents by abusing the process of law violating the rules and misconceiving the facts; passed ex parte decision dated 4-6-2002 whereby the petitioner's result of B.A. 1st Annual Examination, 1995 was quashed. In view of the bar contained in the General Regulations the University cannot quash the result after three years from the date of the declaration of result of the examination. The respondent-University was aware about the detention of the petitioner as he took M.A. Political Science (Part-I) Examination being an under trial prisoner.
The allegations against the petitioner is that he appeared in the B.A. 1st annual Examination 1995 under Roll No.35617 by illegal means and with the connivance of any official of the University and the University, till the date, has not conducted any departmental inquiry to fix the responsibility who allegedly extended help to the petitioner for appearing in the B.A. 1st Annual Examination 1995 and prayed that the impugned order dated 4-6-2002 passed by the Disciplinary Committee be declared illegal and liable to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents-University contends that the petitioner was aware, as has been admitted in his representation filed before the Vice Chancellor in paragraph No 4 'c' that proceeding were pending against him but even then he deemed it fair to submit admission form for appearance in B.A. 2nd Annual Examination 1994 even during pendency of proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee. However, realizing that, his illegal attempt was not permissible under the law, he deliberately absented himself front appearing in examination. The petitioner was restrained from taking examination by the Disciplinary Committee for one year but he did not bother to act upon the decision and that is why he once again was restrained to take examination for three years. The petitioner has obtained degree of B.A. By deceitful ways. The petitioner was duly issued five notices but he did not respond any of them and, thus, the Disciplinary Committee decided the case ex parte through which the petitioner was disqualified for a period of three years.
The petitioner was duly informed about the decision and his result was quashed. The petitioner failed to file appeal within the stipulated period, therefore, his appeal was dismissed being time- barred.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record appended with this writ petition as well as appended with the report and parawise comments submitted by the respondent-University. The only crucial point agitated through this writ petition is that whether the petitioner has obtained his degree of B.A. 1st Annual Examination 1995 by deceitful means from the respondent-University or not. Admittedly the petitioner appeared in B.A. 1st Annual Examination, 1994, under Roll No16531 and could not succeed due to adoption of .Unfair means during course of examination. In presence of a decision taken against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Committee requiring him for not taking examination for one year the petitioner opted to take private examination and decided to sit in 2nd Annual Examination held in 1994 but for the reasons best known to him he absented himself in the examination. It is also admitted that the petitioner has submitted admission form and passed B.A. 1st Annual Examination 1995 by taking only two papers, i,e, English and Arabic (Optional) under Roll No35617 knowingly that he could not get benefit from his previous result held in the year 1994 due to decision of Disciplinary Committee against him for not taking any examination for a period of next one year. The petitioner A did not bother to take notice of the action taken against him but it was his second attempt when he succeeded to deceit the University by securing degree of B.A while passing 1st Annual Examination 1995. At the same time it was second time for the University as well that the Disciplinary Committee had started proceedings against the petitioner for the above said reasons and taken decision against him, prohibiting him for taking examination in future for three years. Even then the petitioner continued to get admission in LL.B as well as M.A. (Political Science) by not caring for two decisions against him. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention towards the copies of charge-sheet and notices issued to the petitioner in pursuance of the proceedings of Disciplinary Committee for appearing and defending his case before it, appended with the reply, but the petitioner did not bother to join/ proceedings and explain his position/innocence, if any. Thus, at this stage he cannot blame the respondents for passing ex parte decision against him. If this is not enough the petitioner has also not bothered to file appeal in time before the Vice-Chancellor. He has filed appeal after. a lapse of two and a half years which means that he was not serious enough to get his matter resolved from the respondent-University and now he wants to settle all his disputes with the respondents through the present writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great emphasis upon 1st proviso to Chapter-VI which pertains to General Regulations wherein the Syndicate has been empowered to quash the result within three years if. Any mistake is found in the compilation or declaration of result or it is found that the candidate was not eligible to appear in the examination. Perhaps the learned counsel was not aware about the fact that the proviso being relied upon by him was of no help to the petitioner inasmuch as that proviso was only confined to the matters dealt with under clauses (2)(3) of Chapter-VI whereas proceedings against the petitioner were conducted under clause (1) of the said Chapter, therefore, benefit of first proviso of the said Chapter was not available to the petitioner. Hence, the argument advanced by the learned counsel on this particular point is spurned. Further, the petitioner has played fraud with the University twice, thus, it can be said indubitably that the petitioner with mala fide intention and by adopting fraudulent means had gone through the process of examination. As mentioned above accordingly the decision made by the Disciplinary Committee the petitioner had to undergo 1st Annual Examination 1995 in the whole papers but he appeared only in two papers by taking the advantage of 1st Annual Examination 1994. Now coming to the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself prior to passing the ex parte decision by the Disciplinary Committee, suffice it to observe that admittedly the petitioner was arrested in a criminal case registered against him on 6-6-2002 whereas proceedings against him were initiated on the application of one Malik Javed Ahmad on 12-11-2001. During the proceedings the petitioner was put under notice to appear before the Disciplinary Committee on 23-1-2002, 15-3-2002, 28-3- 2002, 8-4-2002, 23-5-2002 and 24-5-2002 but the petitioner did not bother to join the proceedings.
Consequently, the Disciplinary Committee was left with no option but to give its ex parte decision on 23-5-2002. Moreover, the said decision was conveyed to the petitioner vide office communication dated 4-6-2002 that too prior to his arrest in the above- mentioned criminal case.
The copies of the documents appended with the report and parawise comments submitted by the respondent University makes it crystal clear that due procedure was adopted prior to taking ex parte decision against the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner cannot raise any serious agitation on this point.
7. It may not be out of place to mention here that while sitting in writ jurisdiction this Court cannot go into the matter in such a depth to resolve the whole dispute in favour of the petitioner in a slipshod manner. The question whether the petitioner was aware of the decisions taken against him by the Disciplinary Committee or not as also the question whether the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing and defending his case are questions which involve factual controversy and the same cannot be resolved by this Court through the present summary procedure under Article 199 of the Constitution. Further, the respondent University has vehemently denied all the stances taken by the petitioner in this writ petition. Thus, the matter needs recording of evidence which exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court for which the petitioner has to approach before the proper forum.
8. For what has been discussed above I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed.