1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The respondent took the Annual LL. B. Examination of 1978 and failed in Paper III. He appeared in the Supplementary LL. B. Examination to clear the said paper held in June, 1981. During the scrutiny of the results, it was found that whereas in the award-list, the respondent was shown to have secured 14 marks in Paper III in the result-sheet 45 marks were entered against his name. On the detection of this fabrication, disciplinary action was initiated against the respondent, resulting in the issuance of a charge-sheet/show-cause notice, dated 5-9-1982 to him. The respondent filed his reply to the charge-sheet. He was thereafter, heard by the Disciplinary Committee in person, which came to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of entering into a deliberate previous arrangement to cheat in the examination by getting his result forged with the connivance of the University staff in order to get benefit therefrom. He was, accordingly, held guilty under Regulation No, 14 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of the examination and was disqualified for a period of three years vide order dated 21-10-1982. Simultaneously, a University official, involved in the aforesaid malpractice, was also proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Statutes of the University and action taken against him thereunder.
2. ' The respondent filed an appeal/petition before the Vice-Chancellor and after hearing the respondent remanded the case to the Disciplinary Committee for re-consideration. The Disciplinary Committee, on remand, again considered the case and afforded the respondent an opportunity of hearing but again came to the same conclusion, to which it had arrived earlier and re-confirmed its previous decision which was conveyed to the respondent vide letter dated 10-2- 1983. The respondent ostensibly accepted the verdict of the University authorities, as conveyed to him by letter dated 10-2-1983, but some seven months later started to reagitatate the matter by moving the Chancellor of the University of the Punjab under section 11 of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973. The Chancellor was pleased to reduce the period of disqualification to two years on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor.
3. ' Despite the above concession, the respondent filed a Writ Petition on 9-10-1983 before the Lahore High Court to challenge the order of disqualification passed by the Disciplinary Committee.
4. However, the last order passed by the Chancellor, were by the period of disqualification was reduced to two years, was not challenged herein. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court accepted the writ petition by his judgment dated 26-2-1984, now impugned before us, wherein he expressed the view that the authorities responsible for taking disciplinary action are supposed to act on some material spelling out the guilt of the person before proceeding to condemn and punish him and as a minimum requirements of fairness he should be given reasonable opportunity to make any relevant statement putting forward his case and should be able through such statement to correct or controvert any relevant statement brought forward to his prejudice. In the instant case, according to the learned Judge, despite the fact that the respondent had all along insisted that the Disciplinary Committee should specify or name the person with whom he was alleged to be in league, the Disciplinary Committee did not provide him with the desired information although an inquiry had already been initiated against the University staff and the Committee must have been aware of the Members of the staff, who were involved therein. The absence of this information resulted in the respondent being placed in a situation from where he was not able to controvert the presumption that the Committee has raised against him.
5. In these circumstances, the respondent could not be said to have been given a fair opportunity to defend himself. Consequently, the principles of natural justice could not be said to have been fully met in his case before condemning him. Reliance was placed on this Court's decision in University of Dacca v. Zakir Anmad (1).
6. ' In support of this petition for leave to appeal, Ch. Muhammad Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the rule laid down in University of Dacca's case has been considerably modified by the decisions of this Court in its subsequent cases, namely, Disciplinary Committee of University of the Punjab, Lahore v. Malik Abdul Majid (2), Rahat Siddiqi v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore (3), Akhtar Ali v. University of the Punjab (4), .Shaukat Ali v. Controller of {{FOOT NOTE}}
(I) PLD 1965 SC 90 (2) 1971 Law Notes (SC) 265
(3) 1977 SC MR 213 (4) 1979 SCM R 549 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' Examinations, University of the Punjab (1), Ahmad v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology (2) and Masood Pervaiz v. Disciplinary Committee, University of toe Punjab (3).
7. He forth submits that in the instant case, the Disciplinary Committee based its finding, as to the guilt of the respondent, on the fact that the record of the University had been tampered with and the respondent was the beneficiary of the said tampering. This raised a presumption, as to the guilt of the candidate and in a case Ike the present, no other material was required to establish his guilt because it was not possible to produce the direct evidence of some witnesses to state that the tampering with the record was done in their presence at the behest of the candidate. It was further submitted that the inquiry in such cases is of a domestic nature, by an authority exercising parental authority. The respondent was heard at every stage and the persons inquiring into the matter were acting in good faith having no malice or bias against the respondent. The validity of the finding of such a parental authority is not to be reviewed by a judicial forum on the same norms, on which the findings of a judicial or quasi-judicial authority are liable to be scrutinized.
8. ' These submissions require further consideration. Leave is, accordingly, granted.
9. ' The impugned judgment of the High Court shall remain suspended meanwhile.
10. ' The appeal shall be made ready on the present record, with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any and put up for hearing as quickly as possible. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1981 SCM R 364 (2) PLD 1981 SC 464
(3) 1982 SCM R -1084 {{FOOT NOTE}}