1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioner's Constitutional petition.
2. ' The brief facts, as noted by the High Court, are that the petitioner was studying in the 2nd year Engineering (Agriculture) in the N.-W.F.P. University when his admission therein was cancelled on account of the cancellation of his B.Sc. Examination. This had happened because he had allegedly produced bogus certificate of practical training in the subject of Statistics -B.Sc. Level on the basis of which he was allowed to appear in the annual B.Sc. Examination.
3. ' After issuing show-cause notice to the petitioner, the University had taken action in due course, in pursuance of an inquiry report which went against the petitioner. Ultimately the action impugned before the High Court having been taken; he filed a writ petition which was dismissed, therefore, this petition for leave to appeal.
4. ' Learned counsel has raised similar points as were urged before the High Court. According to him the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing; that one inquiry report was in petitioner'c favour, the second inquiry could not be launched; that without formally cancelling the certificate of practical training, the benefits including that of admission obtained by the petitioner on that basis, could not be denied to him; that in any case the certificate of practical training was not forged one; and that the opinion expressed by the first Inquiry Officer in this behalf should have been preferred over that expressed by the second Inquiry Officer.
5. ' In so far as the factual aspects are concerned, the case stands concluded by findings of fact. It has been held by the High Court that the petitioner had opportunity of submitting a written reply and he availed of the same. He was also sent a notice with regard to the inquiry and he joined the same; but, subsequently as further held by the High Court, boycotted the same. In these circumstances it cannot be held that the petitioner has had no adequate opportunity of hearing. In our view not only he was afforded due opportunity, but he also availed of the same to the extent it was possible. Be that as it may, it has further been held by the High Court as follows:-- "While so arguing, the learned counsel forgets that the enquiry was got conducted as to the fact whether the petitioner had actually undergone practical training and as a result of enquiry it was discovered that he had actually not at all attended any such practical training/classes. In such circumstances, the cancellation of certificate became meaningless as it could only he a fraudulent and non-genuine document."
6. After hearing the learned counsel we are not able to disagree with the assessment by the High Court of the factual aspect of the case. Accordingly it is not now at this stage possible to hold that the certificate relied upon and made use of by the petitioner was not a forged and false document.
7. The fact that he himself did not directly forge it, will not make any difference; because, even upto the High Court stage he tried to make use of it.
8. ' In the afore discussed facts, circumstances and background, the High Court rightly made the following observation: "The action taken against him by both the Universities was, therefore, legal and valid, and the petitioner being not with clean hands, cannot invoke the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court."
9. ' The afore noticed approach of the High Court is unexceptionable. This Court also has adopted the same course in a number of similar cases. There is no justification for grant of leave to appeal. The same therefore, is refused.