This Constitutional Petition seeks to challenge the legality of the orders of the Discipline Committee and the Committee of Appeal of respondent No. 1, dated 21-11-1979 and 12-1-1980, respectively, whereby the petitioner was disqualified under rule 6.8 (V) of the Calendar of the Board of Inter-- mediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, from passing Intermediate (Spring) Examination, 1979, and three immediately following Examinations.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner appeared as candidate in Urdu Paper "B" on 24-9-1979 at Examination Centre No. 4 at Sialkot, when allegedly he created disturbance and misbehaved with the supervisory staff in the Examination Hall. The Centre Superin--tendent reported against the petitioner whereupon he was served with a charge-sheet dated 23-10-1979.
The petitioner submitted his reply on 3-11-1979 and refuted the allegations, particularly pointing out the mistake in the charge-sheet of Urdu Paper "A" held on 23-10-1979 and not on 24-10-1979. The defence set up by the petitioner in reply was couched in the following words:--- "That to the best of my knowledge and belief I do hereby solemnly declare and affirm that one of the supervisory staff abetted me to help my back seater which I sternly refused and also became more careful and cautious. This might have aroused inimical feelings in the heart of the said man to create a charge against me."
The matter came up before the Discipline Committee for consideration. The petitioner appeared on 21-11-1979 before the aforementioned Committee and the penalty, mentioned above, was imposed upon him. The petitioner filed appeal and mentioned therein : "Most respectfully I beg to state that I was heard in person by the Discipline Committee and disqualified for four examinations alleged for creating disturbance and misbehaving the supervisory staff." It was further mentioned "Further to add, this Centre No. 4 (Murray College, Sialkot) is already under investigation. It is rumoured that some influential persons have maneuvered to get their favourites to seek help by unfair means. In order to hoodwink these phenomenal shortcomings and at the same time to show the efficiency of the work, I am awfully made a scapegoat." The petitioner's appeal was rejected on 12-1-1980 by the Appeal Committee. He has, therefore, assailed the aforementioned orders in this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner did not specify the nature of disturbance allegedly created by, the petitioner and, therefore, his case was prejudiced by being unaware of the precise allegations against him. It was further contended that the report of the Superintendent, Examination Hall, disclosed disturbance allegedly created by the petitioner while appearing in Urdu Paper "B", whereas the charge-sheet and the orders passed by the aforementioned Committees mentioned as if the disturbance had occurred while the petitioner appeared iii Urdu Paper "A". It was submitted that this discrepancy was pointed out by the petitioner in his reply, but no conscious mind was applied by the Committees and the matter was decided in most mechanical manner against the petitioner. It was argued that the report of the Superintendent was incorrect inasmuch as it mentioned the creation of disturbance daily by the petitioner. It was stated that the Discipline Committee erroneously took the view that it was the petitioner who was to establish his innocence and the falsehood of the charge against him. It was next argued that the Committees did not. Take into consideration the fact that the petitioner's explanation in the Examination Hall was not recorded, nor the requisite form S. F. 8 was filled or signed by the Superintendent and in this way a mandatory instruc--petition was violated by the Superintendent., It was stated that no explanation whatsoever existed on the record of the Superintendent for the non-compliance of the instructions of the Board. It was also stated that the report of the Superintendent itself was faulty as the petitioner could not daily create dis--turbance in the Examination Hall because he appeared only in two papers and the intervening period was not less than a fortnight.
4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the Committees appointed by respondent No. 1 are domestic tribunals and are not supposed to conduct judicial trials. It was vehemently asserted that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity of hearing in this case. It was stated that the Superintendent as well as other supervisory staff deputed in the Examination Hall at the relevant time was summoned and the petitioner was allowed to cross-examine the Superin--tendent in the presence of his father before the Appeal Committee. It was argued that the petitioner was shown all the material adverse to him. It was submitted that the petitioner had been changing his pleas before the Committees. In support of his contention he referred to the explanation sub--mitted by the petitioner to the charge-sbeet, and the memorandum of his appeal. It was stated that the petitioner was aware of the substance of. Allegations against him. The Superintendent affirmed his report which was certified by the. Deputy Superintendent as well. It was submitted that the error of mentioning Paper "A" instead of Paper "B" was clerical. It had no bearing on the decision of the case on merits, specially when the date of occurrence vie., 24-10-1979 was correctly mentioned. The non-filling of the Form S. F. 8 was also immaterial, because the Centre Superintendent did not disown the report submitted by him against the petitioner.
5. After hearing arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record produced by Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Advocate, I is clear that the petitioner was afforded proper opportunity of hearing in the matter by the Committees, which passed the impugned orders against him, The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet, to which he replied and refute the allegations and took up a stand that one of the members of the supervisory Staff' abetted him to help his back seater and on his refusal, h might have created false charge to involve him. In appeal, he modified hi plea and asserted that at the instance of influential persons the Centre in question was already under investigation and for that reason the petitioner was made a scapegoat. The Superintendent and the other supervisory Staff were summoned before the Appeal Committee. The petitioner was allowed to cross-examine the Centre Superintendent, which was not imperative for the tribunal to permit, but appears to have been allowed in the cause of justice and fairplay.
6. The petitioner attributed no enmity to the Superintendent to involve .Him falsely in the case, nor pleaded bias in the tribunals. The Discipline Committee as well as the Appeal Committee constituted domestic tribunals regulated by their own procedure, not expected to follow intricate legal procedure, meant for the conduct of judicial trials. The petitioner was aware of the substance of allegation against him that he created disturbance ill the Examination Hall and misbehaved with the supervisory staff. Such behaviour of the candidates in the Examination Hall would prevent and hamper the smooth conduct of examinations and render the supervisory staff helpless, in case no action is taken against the delinquents.
7. The omission to fill form S. F. 8 did not cause prejudice to the case of the petitioner, because the Superintendent owned his report in the presence of the petitioner and his father before the Appeal Committee.
8. The law in respect of inquiry in a case of such nature was laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in University of Dacca and another v. Zakir Ahraad PLD 1965SC90) in the following words "Of course, the person, body or authority concerned must act in good faith, but it would appear that it is not bound to treat the matter as if it was a trial or to administer oath or examine witnesses in the presence of the person accused or give him facility for cross-examining the witnesses against him or even to serve a formal charge-sheet upon him. Such a person or authority can obtain information in any way it thinks fit, provided it gives a fair opportunity to the person sought to be affected to correct or contradict any relevant statement prejudicial to him. In other words, `in order to act justly and to reach just ends by just means' the Courts insist that the person or authority should have adopted the above `elementary and essential principles' unless the same had been expressly excluded by the enactment empowering him to act."
This dictum was invariably followed by superior Courts of this country. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in a recent case entitled Akhtar Alit v. Universityof the Punjab (1979 SCMR 549reaffirmed the principle enunciated in the above-cited case. I am, therefore, of the view that the test laid down by the Supreme- Court had been fully satisfied in this case and the action taken bythe Committees of the respondent was in accordance with law
9. The result. Is that this petition fails arid is dismissed with no order as to costs.