SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---Leave to appeal was granted to the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Sargodha (hereinafter referred to as the Board) to examine whether the Board was justified in demanding a deposit of Rs,70 expenses as from the students while allowing them an opportunity to cross-examine the Deputy Superintendent and other staff on duty in the Examination Hall, and whether the Board had taken a decision with regard to the disqualification of the respondent without conscious application of mind to all the facts.
2. In September, 1977, FA./F.Sc. Examinations were being held under the supervision of the Board.
The Controller of Examinations of the Board received secret information that answer books of certain candidates were being replaced/substituted at Examination Centre No,3, Bhalwal. At the stage the complaint was received examination in only two papers namely, Chemistry Paper `A' and Chemistry Paper 'B' were yet to be held. The Controller of the Board deputed an official of the Board to collect the scripts of the candidates from the aforementioned Centre directly and bring it to the office of the Examination Branch of the appellants. It was done and papers were got examined from the examiners in the normal course. It was detected 19 candidates who had done very well in all other papers earlier held had done miserably in these two papers directly collected. This wide gap between their performance led to further enquiry and it was found that their earlier scripts did not bear the authorised signatures of the Deputy Superintendent of the Examination Hall as was required under the Rules. After a preliminary enquiry had been held and a prima facie case was found, a charge-sheet was given to the respondent who was shown the material against him at the hearing and personally heard in the matter, and an order was passed disqualifying him from four examinations i,e,, Spring 1977 to Autumn 1978 and his result which had been announced in the meantime was quashed. The petitioner challenged this order of the Board by a Constitution Petition (W.P.No,523 of 1979). The main ground which prevailed with the learned Judge in Chambers was that the respondent wanted to cross-examine the Deputy Supreintendent of the Examination Hall whose signatures on the script were said to be forged to make the script non-genuine, but he could not do so because the rules required the deposit of a sum of Rs,70 for the expenses of the witness. The learned Judge held as hereunder:-- "In my view the petitioner had a legal right to cross-examine a witness who had deposed against him and to order him to deposit Rs,70 in the account of the Board before he was allowed to cross- examine the witness tantamounts to refusing the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. This is contrary to the requirments of natural justice. This prima facie is not permissible in law. The rule framed by the Board on that account appears to offend the principles of natural justice. But without adjudicating upon the legality of the rule, this writ petition can be disposed of on another point."
' The decisive ground taken by the learned Judge in Chamers for allowing the Constitution Petition was as hereunder:-- " the disputed signatures of the Deputy Superintendent which were alleged to have been forged by the petitioner were sent to the handwriting expert after the decision of the Board. In other words, the report of the handwriting expert was not before the Board, when it confirmed the decision of the Disciplinary Committee whereby the petitioner had been punished. Clearly the Board had decided the case without applying his mind to the facts of the case. It had prejudged the entire matter. The Board's decision whereby it confirmed the finding of the Disciplinary Committee is accordingly declared to be illegal and without lawful authority."
3. The appeal Bench of the High Court took up yet another ground for disposal of the matter by holding as hereunder:-- "It may be mentioned here that the case of the respondent has been that he never forged the signatures of the Deputy Superintendent, and if anybody else had forged the same then he was not concerned with that nor he could be held guilty on that account. The Disciplinary Committee never obtained the specimen signatures of the respondent as well as that of the Deputy Superintendent and sent the same to the Handwriting Expert to submit his report after due comparison with the alleged forged signatures on the answer books as to whether the respondent was guilty of forging the same. Further the Handwriting Expert was liable to be examined under the law in support of his report and if it had been against the respondent then he should have been given an opportunity of cross-examining the handwriting expert. In the absence of that it is difficult to uphold the decision arrived at by the Disciplinary Committee as well as the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education."
4. The matter has come up for hearing ex parte against respondent.
5. Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants had contended that all the three findings recorded by the High Court are not tenable in law in view' of the decisions of this Court given in the University of Dacca through its Vice-Controller and another v. Zakir Ahmed. PLD 1965 SC 90, Akhtar All v. The University of the Punjab (1979 SCM R 549) and Shaukat All v. The Controller of Examinations, University of the Punjab, Lahore and another (1981 SCM R 364).
6. The first question which needs examination is the vires of Rule 22 which requires a candidate summoning a witness on duty in the examination hall to deposit Rs,70 towards his expenses. The learned Judge has not given a final opinion with regard to its vires but has considered it as destructive of the right of natural justice of hearing in the proceedings. It had to be noted in the context that the persons on duty in the examination hall are not either whole-time or part-time employees of the Board. They belong to other Departments. They are on the approved list of the Board and they are put on duty for short periods for the purposes of discharging such duties. They are not located at one station either. In such circumstances, the summoning of these witnesses necessarily entails expenses on their travelling and daily allowance. The charge sheet is issued against a candidate only after a prima facie case had been found of his involvement in a case of unfair means. It is not the condition that when a witness is being examined and the candidate happens to be present, he can cross-examine him only on deposit of money. If that was so it would certainly be a clog on his right and unreasonable but if his examination-in-chief or report is found on the record and the candidate wants to call him for cross-examination he had to deposit the expenses, the requirment of the deposit of expenses in such a situation would appear to be justified. The amount demanded is also not unreasonably high, deterrent or punitive. In the circumstances, the High Court has taken a view with regard to the deposit of the amount as expenses of the witness to be called for cross-examination or examination which cannot be supported in law or the prevalent practice of the Courts and Tribunals.
7. The Board had passed a conditional order. It had affirmed the finding of the Disciplinary Committee with one condition that the expert's opinion be additionally obtained and if it was in conformity with the finding of the Disciplinary Committee, then the order should stand and if not, then the candidate would stand exonerated. There was nothing wrong in forming such an opinion or passing such an order. It only shows that the Board wanted to be doubly sure and to give every benefit to the candidate. It cannot be said that such an order violated either any law or any principle of law. Such an order would actually show that the Board in passing this order paid full attention to the allegations, the requirements of the situation, of fairness and reasonableness in the proceedings.
8. The appeal Bench of the High Court has gone by the proof of actual D forgery of the signatures.
That was not the matter in issue. The matter in issue was whether genuine scripts of the candidate have been evaluated by the examiners in the earlier papers. The respondent himself was the beneficiary of the malpractice. His participation in it has to be assumed just as a person in possession of the stolen goods soon after the commission of an offence of theft is saddled with incriminating knowledge. In such cases to insist upon a direct evidence is to ask for the impossible.
Such cannot be the demands imposed in domestic enquiries relating to educational institutions where undeserved benefits obtained by fabrication, forgeries or substitution of records have to be attended to.
9. In rendering the judgments the value system prevailing in the society should not be disturbed on technical grounds. It was obvious as a result of the enquiry starting from the complaint to the evaluation of the scripts that the result could not stand and it suffered from an inherent taint which nothing could sanctify. In such a situation, the quashment of the result should not have been interfered with. None of the Courts have doubted the fact that the scripts, those that were earlier evaluated, were non-genuine. The only question to which the Courts addressed themselves was whether the respondent was afforded adequate opportunity to meet the allegations and whether he was personally responsible/liable for such substitution which was found to exist as a fact. On that depended the penal part of the order disqualifying the respondent from future examinations.
10. We accept the appeal ex parte, set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court and restore the order of the Board. No order is made as to costs. 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.