The petitioner, Muhammad Muzammil Saeed, being a regular student of Punjab University Law College appeared in LL.B. (Part-I) Annual Examination, 2011 under Roll No, 3470 from the Examination Centre constituted at Punjab College of Commerce, Lahore (LHR-17). On 28.07.2011, the University Monitoring Team comprising Addl. Controller of Examinations, Deputy Controller of Examination-ll, Deputy Controller of Examination-I and Deputy Controller (Conduct) visited the above said Examination Centre and while checking the petitioner was found having in his possession one old question paper bearing handwritten notes and resultantly on- the direction of the Monitoring Team the Centre Superintendent made an unfair means case against the petitioner. After the termination of examination, when Centre Superintendent Ch. Muhammad Shafique, Lecturer, Government Diyal Singh College, Lahore was coming towards Secrecy Branch of University for depositing answer books including unfair means cases, eight persons on four motorcycles suddenly came ahead of him and asked him to handover answer books on gun point. They snatched the bundle of answer books and unfair means cases from the invigilator who was sitting with the Centre Superintendent on the motorcycle. Immediately FIR. No, 374 dated 28.07.2011 under Section 395, P.P.C. was got registered at P.S. Muslim Town, Lahore and the incident was reported to the Vice Chancellor of the University of the Punjab who constituted a Committee for probing into the matter. The Committee held its meeting on 29.07.2011 and recommended that Re-examination of 108 candidates be conducted and the candidates including the petitioner against whom unfair means cases had been registered should not be allowed to sit in Re-examination. The recommendations were approved by the Vice Chancellor on 30.07.2011. Thereafter, on 03.08.2011 charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner under Regulation Nos, 12 and 13. The Disciplinary Committee vide its decision dated 29.9.2011 disqualified the petitioner for three years. The decision of the Disciplinary Committee was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 10.10.2011. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner moved a representation/ appeal before the Vice Chancellor, University of the Punjab who referred the case to the Independent Disciplinary Committee for reconsideration. The Independent Disciplinary Committee on 23.12.2011 upheld the previous decision. The decision of the Independent Disciplinary Committee was confirmed by the Vice Chancellor and the decision was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 02.01.2012. The petitioner being dissatisfied with decision of the Disciplinary Committee had invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not guilty of using any objectionable material and, therefore, no charge within the contemplation of Regulation Nos, 12 and 13 is made out; that the decisions of the Disciplinary Committee are bereft of any reason; and, that the Vice Chancellor has passed the order without applying his independent mind to the facts of the case.
3. Conversely, Sardar Tariq Mehmood, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the Disciplinary Committee is in the nature of Domestic Tribunal and their findings cannot be substituted by this Court; that the Disciplinary Committee after evaluating the evidence on record and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has disqualified the petitioner for three years; and, that the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee are in consonance with law.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record appended with the petition.
5. The Secretary Disciplinary Committee on 03.08.2011, issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner with the following allegation:-- "You appeared in LLB. Part-I, first Annual Examination, 2011 under Roll No, 3470. On 28.07.2011, while you were taking examination in Paper-VI (Criminal Law), one old question paper bearing handwritten notes relevant to the syllabus/question paper was recovered from your possession."
After having received reply to the charge-sheet, the matter was placed before the Disciplinary Committee consisting of three members. On 29.09.2011 the Disciplinary Committee passed following decision (Attached with the report and parawise comments at page 11); "Disqualified for three years/ R-12 & 13".
However, on the same date i,e, 29.09.2011, the Secret Disciplinary Committee prepared following note:-- The University Monitoring Team consisting of Addl. Controller of Examinations, Deputy Controller Examination-II, Deputy Controller Examination-I and Deputy Controller Conduct reported that on 28.07.2011, the day of examination in Paper-VI (Criminal Law), the candidate Roll No, 3470 was found having in his possession the helping material i,e, one old question paper bearing handwritten notes.
The candidate was charge sheeted on the above charges. He was also called upon to appear before the Disciplinary Committee. He appeared before the Disciplinary Committee on 15.09.2011.
He was explained the charges and then was heard in person.
He denied the charges saying that neither any material was recovered from his possession nor he copied anything there from. He stated that the material was lying on the floor near his seat which was picked up by the monitoring Team and attributed to him. In reply to the question whether the Monitoring team had any grudge against him, he stated in negative.
After hearing the candidate the Committee examined the documents available in the file and noted that at 5.45 p.m. when Centre Superintendent of Lahore-17 for depositing answer books bundles and reached ahead of Faisal Auditorium, 8 persons on four Motor Cycles suddenly came ahead of him and asked him to hand over answer books bundles on gunpoint. They snatched bundles of answer books and two unfair means cases from Invigilators who was sitting with him on the Motor Cycle. The Committee also observed that the two candidates against whom UMCs were registered are involved in this incident.
The Disciplinary Committee after going through the case on various aspects held the candidate guilty and disqualified him for a period of three years under Regulation 13."
It is noteworthy here that the decision of the Disciplinary Committee, available at page 11 of the report and para-wise comments, is signed by all the three members of the Disciplinary Committee whereas the above quoted note of the Secretary is signed by two members of the Disciplinary Committee and this inconsistency shows that the decision and the note were not prepared on the same date. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner moved representation against the decision of the Disciplinary Committee before the Vice Chancellor who referred the matter to an Independent Disciplinary Committee. On 23.12.11, the Independent Committee passed following decision (Attached with the report and parawise comments at page 14): "Previous decision upheld."
6. The Secretary Independent Disciplinary Committee prepared a note dated 27.12.2011 and sought confirmation of the decision of the Independent Disciplinary Committee from the Vice Chancellor who without hearing the petitioner and expressing any reason just signed the note. Thereafter, vide letter dated 02.01.12 the decision of the Vice Chancellor was communicated to the petitioner and the same reads as under (Attached with the report and parawise comments at page 17): "Reference your representation addressed to the Vice Chancellor against the orders of the Disciplinary Committee disqualifying you for a period of three years for using unfair means in LLB.
Part-I, First Annual Examination, 2011, Roll No, 3470.
This is to inform you that the Vice-Chancellor referred your case to the. Independent Disciplinary Committee for re-consideration. The Committee after re-considering the case decided to uphold its previous, decision."
It is regrettable to note that the Disciplinary Committee, Independent Disciplinary Committee and the Vice Chancellor while inflicting punishment did not give any reason in support of their decision.
None of the Committees has stated whether the material recovered from the petitioner was relevant to the syllabus/ question paper so as to attract the provisions of Regulations 12 & 13 or the allegation as set out in the charge-sheet stands proved against the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Walayat Ali Mir vs. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through its Chairman and another (1995 SCM R 650) has held that mere writing the words "disproved" or "rejected" will not suffice. If decisions are expressed in these terms then the same shall be termed as arbitrary and autocratic and has the character of being deleterious passed without considering the facts, circumstances, rules and regulations made to regulate such decisions. Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union (1971) 1 All ER 1148 observed: "the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 ICR 120) it was observed "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." This doctrine has been recognized and augmented by the insertion of Section 24-A in the General Clauses Act, 1897 which declares that where a Statute confers a power to make any order or to give any direction to any Authority, office or person, such would be exercised reasonably, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purpose of the enactment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Airport Services vs. The Airport Manager, Quaid-i-Azam International Airport Karachi and others (1998 SCM R 2268) has held that the order or direction, so far as necessary or appropriate would reflect reasons for its making or issuance and, where the same is lacking, the affectee may demand the necessary reasons, which, in response would be furnished. In the instant case the perusal of record shows that the punishment has been inflicted on conjectures and surmises. The impugned decisions of the Disciplinary Committees are not sustainable as firstly, the University got registered F.I.R. No, 374 dated 28.07.2011 under Section 395, P.P.C. with P.S. Muslim Town, Lahore which subsequently on 08.01.2012 was cancelled as the bundle of answer books was recovered on 28.07.2011 from a garden near the Admn Block of the University; secondly, a Probe Committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor in its recommendations dated 29.07.2011, without hearing the petitioner declared him guilty and, therefore, not allowed him to sit in Re-examination. This constitutes pre-determination of issue before the decision of the Disciplinary Committee; thirdly, the Disciplinary Committee did not give any reason whether the material recovered from the petitioner was relevant for the subject of paper VI i,e, Criminal Law; and, lastly no reason has been expressed in the decisions. All these facts show malice in law on the part of the University. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Abdul Jannan but the University of Peshawar (PLD 1996 SC 709) has held that the orders passed by the University Authorities inflicting punishment on students must at least be intelligible showing application of mind and capable of conveying the intention of the Authority passing the order. I am helpless to observe that in the case before me the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee and the Independent Disciplinary Committee and the Vice Chancellor do not show application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. Sardar Tariq Mahmood, learned counsel for respondents has rightly pointed out that University is in the nature of a mere Domestic Tribunal constituted under the law and a dispute of this kind between the University and the candidate admitted to the examination arranged by it, is primarily domestic; and such a dispute can be more properly resolved in the homely and domestic atmosphere of the University and should not be allowed to be dragged to the law Courts. The salutary reason behind the above said contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is enshrined in the following observations made by Kindersley, V.C. in the case of Thomson v. The University of London (1966) 2 All ER 338: "Whatever relates to the internal arrangements and dealings with regard to the Government and management of the house, of the domus, of the institution, is properly within the jurisdiction of the Visitor, and this only under the jurisdiction of the Visitor, and this Court will not interfere in those matters; but when it comes to a question of right of property, or rights as between the .University and a third person dehors the University, or with regard, it may be, to any breach of trust committed by the corporation, that is, the University, and so on, or any contracts by the corporation, not being matters relating to the mere management and arrangement and details of their domus, then, indeed, this Court will interfere."
The constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is circumscribe by Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and in exercise of this jurisdiction the Court can simply pronounce upon the invalidity of the order and declare that it was without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. Beyond it, strictly speaking, this Court has no jurisdiction to issue any other direction and substitute its own judgment in the matter. In this connection the. Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Begum B.H. Syed vs. Mst. Afzal Jhan Begum and another (PLD 1970 ,SC 29) observed that it is not disputed that the High Court had no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the case and substitute its own findings on the merit. Similarly, in another case Nawaz v. The Addl. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (PLD 1970 SC 39) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction does not act as a Court of facts and ought not to enter into and decide disputed 'questions of fact. In Syed Azmat Ali vs. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore and others (PLD 1964 SC 260) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the superior Courts exercising Wvit jurisdiction had full power to do justice but not to substitute its own decision for the decision of inferior Authority and it was more appropriate to return the case to the Authority or Tribunal concerned for a decision in accordance with law after quashing the order complained against. This view was also adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naveed Rauf vs. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore (2003 SCM R 1250).
7. In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan the decision dated 29.09.11, passed by the Disciplinary Committee and decision dated 23.12.2011 passed by the Independent Disciplinary Committee which was subsequently confirmed by the Vice-Chancellor on 27.12.2011 and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 02.01.2012 are hereby set aside.
The matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Committee to pass a fresh cogent order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before the commencement of the forthcoming LL.B. (Part-I)
Examination. This petition, therefore, succeeds and is accordingly allowed.