' This writ petition calls in question the order dated 17th November, 1980 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi, whereby the petitioner was disqualified for two examinations i. e. Spring 1980 to Autumn, 1980 under rules 7 (1) and (ii) and for four examinations i. e. Spring, 1980 to Autumn 1981, under rules 8 (i) and 8 (v) of the Board's Calendar Volume-I, Chapter-6 on the ground that the petitioner replaced the answer sheets of official answer books of Biology 'B', Physics 'A' & 'B' and Chemistry 'A' & 'B' papers in the Intermediate Spring Examination held in 1980.
2. The Assistant Controller, Examination-H, of the Board was directed to bring the answer sheets of the candidates having roll numbers 1929 and 1931 for the Spring Examination 1980, as well as, the identification sheets alongwith the entire relevant record to appreciate the controversy raised in this petition. The answer sheets of the said candidates have not been produced. A perusal of identification sheets however shows that all the answer books except Biology bear the same number as entered in the identification sheets.
3. I have also checked the handwriting of the petitioner and it appears that the alleged replaced answer sheets are also in his handwriting. From the perusal of record, it is ex- facie proved that the petitioner used the same answer sheets in the said examination except the Biology paper which was supplied to him in the examination hall. This being so, the question of replacement of original answer books by fake sheets did not arise. When faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondents submits that these answer books were never got printed by the Board. He further submits that the Deputy Superintendent of the centre concerned also made a statement before the Discipline Committee on 4th January, 1980 that the disputed answer sheets did not bear his signatures. Mr. Aziz Ullah Dar, Assistant Controller, Examination-II, of the Board has however, frankly conceded, after thorough perusal of record that the statement of the Deputy Superintendent was not recorded in the presence of the petitioner. This being so, no reliance can be placed on his statement. The answer sheets- supplied to the petitioner bear the same numbers which have been entered in the attendance register and identification sheets maintained by the Board except the Biology paper. This raised a strong presumption in favour of the petitioner which could not be rebutted by reference to any material on record by the learned counsel for the respondent. It is true that the quantum of material is within the exclusive field of the authorities concerned and a finding of fact recorded after appreciation of relevant material placed before it cannot be assailed in writ jurisdiction unless it is based on misreading of evidence. In the instant case, grave prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by not affording him an opportunity to show cause and give his explanation to the allegations now raised for the first time in this Court that these answer sheets were never printed by the Board. This allegation was never levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet nor he was confronted with it during the course of disciplinary proceedings. On this ground alone, the impugned orders are vitiated and are liable to be struck down being violative of the principle of natural justice.
4. Be that as it may, the answer sheet of Biology 'B' paper does not bear any serial number although in the identification sheet duly initialed by the petitioner the paper supplied to the petitioner bore serial number `95344', but this question was also not specified in the charge-sheet except a bald allegation of replacement of the answer sheet. Learned counsel for the respondent has however, strongly relied upon the dictum laid down in Masood Pervaiz v. Disciplinary Committee, Punjab University, Lahore and two others to the effect that the incriminating material could also be collected in the absence of a candidate provided he was afforded opportunity of hearing. Masood Pervaiz's case is distinguishable, in that, in the precedent case, the substituted answer sheet was not in the handwriting of the candidate, whereas in the instant case, it is not denied that the alleged replaced sheets were in the handwriting of the petitioner.
5. In view of the above, the impugned orders of disqualification dated 17th November, 1980 of the Disciplinary Committee, as well as, the order dated 25th March, 1981 of the Appellate Committee, are hereby declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result is that the respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner on the basis of answer sheets except Biology '13' paper regarding which a fresh enquiry shall be held in accordance with law within fifteen days from the announcement of this judgment. Final decision in the matter shall also be taken at least one month before the commencement of the forthcoming examination. This shall not debar the petitioner to appear afresh in the next spring examination, if so advised. The petitioner has already undergone a punishment of disqualification to appear in the examination for six terms. I have no doubt in my mind that the respondent Board shall take into consideration this extenuating circumstance while taking a final decision on merits regarding the alleged replacement of the Biology-'B' paper. To this extent the writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs. 1982 SCM R 1084 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.