MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--Respondent Gulfam Akhtar appeared in the B.A. /B.Sc. Examination of the year 1982 held by the University of the Punjab Centre in Sialkot. While the examination in Mathematics B-Course Paper-A was in progress on the 19th October, 1982 the Superintendent of the Centre received information that two answer books have been taken out of the hall and that those were going to be brought back into the Centre after answers were recorded on those answer books. The Superintendent kept a vigilant watch and found a candidate, namely, Musa Raza Virk, seeking permission to go out of the hall to ease himself. The said candidate was allowed, and when he re-entered the hall shortly afterwards, he was searched and two answer books, one bearing his roll number and the other that of the respondent Gulfam Akhtar were recovered. Statements of Musa Raza Virk and that of the other candidate were recorded by the Superintendent. The former, later on, was found to be impersonating the respondent. Both of them admitted that they had sent their answer books out of the hall for recording the answers. The Superintendent, later on, sent the record to the University Authorities on which 'Unfair means' cases were registered against Gulfam Akhtar respondent and Musa Raza Virk who were served with charge-sheets. In reply to the charge-sheet the respondent took up the position that on 19-10-1982 he was at Kohat to appear in the Inter-Services Selection Board. He further pleaded that he had no connection with the boy who was appearing in his place on the said date and that the whole case against him has been engineered by his enemies.
2. The Disciplinary Committee, after giving full hearing to the respondent, came to the conclusion that he was guilty of employing unfair means, disqualified him under Regulation 14 for a period of three years. On appeal filed by the respondent before the Vice-Chancellor, the case was remanded to the Disciplinary Committee for re-consideration. After further hearing of the case the Disciplinary Committee came to the conclusion that no case was made out for interference in the earlier decision of the Committee whereby the respondent was disqualified for three years. The subsequent decision of the Disciplinary Committee was affirmed by the Vice-Chancellor.
The respondent then filed writ petition in the Lahore High Court which was placed before a learned Judge in Chamber who was informed that the respondent had already suffered the entire period of disqualification and the case had ceased to be a live issue. However, the learned Judge, in terms of the impugned judgment, dated 16-7-1985, accepted the writ petition and declared the decision of the University of Punjab as of no legal effect.
3. Petitioners counsel contended that the learned Judge failed to appreciate that in cases where impersonation is practised or where previous deliberate arrangements are made to cheat in the examination or where the record of the University is tampered with a view to illegally declare a candidate as successful, no direct evidence can be made. Available to establish the guilt of the miscreant; that in such like cases this Court has ruled in more than one cases that the initial presumption would be that the candidate is guilty unless he can rebut that presumption by unimpeachable defence. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the proceedings before the domestic Tribunals of the University are in the nature of parental proceedings and the rules of evidence applicable to trials before the Courts of Law are not attracted towards them, for, in that event it shall be impossible for the educational institutions to take steps to enforce discipline amongst the students. It is submitted that in any case, the two judgments of this Court relied upon by the learned Judge in Chamber had no application to the facts of the present case and those have been wrongly applied to grant an extraordinary relief to the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent also reiterated the stand taken by him before the learned Judge of the High Court in support of his case and argued that in cases where the High Court has made elaborate assessm ent of the evidence, leave may not be granted.
5. After hearing the learned counsel, we convert the petition into appeal on the grounds raised by the learned counsel in arguments before us. We do not agree with the learned High Court Judge on the question that respondent Gulfam Akatar was unaware of the whole affair regarding the taking out of the answer books; recording the answers thereon and bringing these answer books back into the examination hall. No one else could be aware of the fact that the respondent was appearing before the Inter-Services Selection Board, Kohat on that date and no one would be taking the risk of impersonating a person without his blessing and connivance. Therefore, it cannot be said that the finding of the Disciplinary Committee is based on no evidence. In the extraordinary jurisdiction the Courts do not interfere with it in the exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of judicial review.
6.In Shaukat A.I v. The Controller of Examinations, University of the Punjab. Lahore and another 1981 SCMR 364 the observations made by this Court are:- "The persons in charge of educational institutions must be given the fullest authority via-a-via their students in the same manner as a parent or guardian. From this it would follow that in a case of the present nature the presumption would be that the student had indeed been proceeded against properly and without any malice, unless, of course, he would be able to discharge the said initial presumption operating against him by producing some evidence to the effect that the action initiated against him was based on mala fides. In other words, in the absence of any evidence to show that the action initiated against the student is based on mala fides, it would be quite proper for the authorities, provided they afford a fair opportunity to him to correct or contradict any relevant statement prejudicial to his interest to proceed against him for the violation of any rules, and in that behalf the authorities would be under no compulsion to formally charge-sheet him or to examine witnesses in his presence or to afford him the facility of cross-examining any witness."
1982 SCMR 1084 it was held that the quantum of material for reaching a finding of fact is within the exclusive field of the authorities concerned.
1985 SCMR 802 it has been observed by this Court "The University Authorities are not required in the disciplinary proceedings to strictly follow the technical rules of evidence enjoined by the Evidence Act. Notwithstanding that the disciplinary forum functioning in the educational institutions are not tied down to procedural requirements of a trial in a judicial or quasi-judicial forum, like administering oath or examining witnesses in the presence of the accused person or giving him facility of examining the witnesses, the decision of such forum is nonetheless not sacrosanct if it is unfair or arbitrary."
7.After carefully considering the decisions on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant, we find no force in the contentions raised by him. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.