' This writ petition arises out of the order dated 8th August, 1982 of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, whereby the petitioner was disqualified for two examinations, i. e.
Spring and Autumn of 1982, 1983.
2. The allegations against the petitioner are that while appearing in the Secondary School Certificate Examination (Spring), 1982, on 29th March 1982, in the paper of Chemistry, the petitioner was detected having printed material, relating to the paper. The petitioner allegedly refused to give his statement before the detector at the spot, in the presence of the members of the Mobile Squad.
Accordingly he was charge-sheeted to show cause why he should not be disqualified under the regulations of the Board. The petitioner specifically raised the following plea in reply to the charge- sheet (Annexure `D'): {{URDU TEXT}} The petitioner also specifically took up the point vide paragraph 7 of the writ petition that the petitioner's seat was changed and he was never asked to make a statement and that the `Parchi'
Was not recovered from the petitioner. The respondent Board has not denied this assertion vide its report under paragraph 7, which reads thus: "It is not denied that the petitioner replying to the charge-sheet denied the allegations levelled against him."
' The specific stand taken by the petitioner was neither refuted by the Discipline Committee vide its order dated 13th June, 1982 nor by Appellate Committee vide order dated 8th August, 1982. The petitioner was disqualified under rule 6.6 (ii) of the Board's Calendar. This being so, on this ground alone the impugned orders of the Board are liable to be struck down being violate of the principle of natural justice.
3. The learned Deputy Controller vehemently submitted that the petitioner was asked to explain his position vide charge-sheet, to which he replied. He was also afforded personal hearing by the Discipline Committee, as well as, by the Appeal Committee, who found him guilty of the charges leveled against him. After perusal of the entire record and taking into consideration the explanation of the petitioner it was found that the petitioner failed to record his statement in the examination hall. The detection took place in the presence of the members of the mobile squad, who duly corroborated the statement of the Deputy Superintendent that objectionable printed paper was recovered from the petitioner's seat and therefore, no prejudice is caused for not specifically adverting to the point in question, referred to in the reply to the charge-sheet. I am afraid, I am unable to agree with the Deputy Controller, in that, if the relevant material has been recovered from the person of the petitioner, the position might have been different, as the petitioner fully participated in the disciplinary proceedings and the impugned order was passed after providing him an opportunity of being heard. In the instant case, however, the petitioner's consistent stand throughout has been that his seat was changed from the 2nd seat of Row No, 1 to the last seat of Row No, 2 and the paper was allegedly found from the petitioner's changed seat. Had the paper been recovered from the petitioner's original seat, no prejudice might have been caused to the petitioner. As earlier pointed out, the objectionable paper was recovered from the changed seat, which the petitioner di not occupy voluntarily but he was asked to occupy the same by the Superintendent of the center concerned. This fact, specifically raised by the petitioner, has not been denied even in the written statement and therefore, it is a fit case where benefit of doubt should be granted to the petitioner that the 'chit' in question was not taken by hi in the examination ball. The Deputy Controller has also shown the detailed marks obtained by the petitioner, which shows that he has qualified in all the papers, except Chemistry.
' In view of the above the impugned order dated 13th June, 1982 of the Discipline Board Committee and the order dated 8th August, 1982 of the Appeal Committee of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, are, hereby declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The respondent is also directed to declare the result of the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.