' Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Muneer-ud-Din appeared in MA. Library Science Annual Examination, 1986 held by the University of the Punjab, Lahore. In Paper III the Centre Superintendent reported against him a case of use of unfair means. On the basis of the report the Disciplinary Committee issued to him a show-cause notice No,6069/U-88 dated 3-11-1988. The main charges against him were that while taking examination in the III Paper he attached three solved smuggled continuation sheets, used helping material and misbehaved with the supervisory staff. The petitioner contested the allegations and submitted a written reply.
2. The enquiry conducted by the Disciplinary Committee resulted in disqualification of the petitioner for appearance in any University Examination for three years under Regulation No,14 and for one year each under Regulations Nos. 12(a) and 18 of the University. Calendar Vol.! For the year 1977-78. The finding in this behalf was conveyed to him vide letter No,1485/4.8, dated 9-4-1989.
3. During the course of the said enquiry it transpired that the examiner of Paper I also reported case of use of unfair means against the petitioner. The said examiner had observed that the writing style of the petitioner on the continuation sheet totally differed from his writing style on sheets of the other paper and it was suspected that either the answer had been copied or a solved sheet had been smuggled into the examination hall by the petitioner.
4. The Disciplinary Committee took cognizance of the matter and issued another show-cause notice No,216/U dated 10-1-1990 to the petitioner which inter alia alleged that the petitioner had either copied the answer or smuggled continuation sheets into the centre after writing answer thereon; and that on the day of Paper-I he had obtained only one continuation sheet but attached three such sheets with the answer book. The petitioner contested this allegation also. The Disciplinary Committee found him guilty and disqualified him for a period of three years vide order dated 6-5-1990. Both the punishments were ordered to run concurrently.
5. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Vice-Chancellor against the punishments awarded to him. The Vice-Chancellor referred the case to the Disciplinary Committee for reconsideration. It was further directed that the case of the petitioner be placed before a Committee other than the one which had already decided the case against the petitioner.
6. The Committee reconsidered the case relating to Paper-III decided by the former Committee but decided to uphold the previous decision.
7. Hence this writ petition.
8. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the case against him is without foundation and the disqualification imposed by the respondent is mala fide. According to the petitioner he has been vexed twice for the same offence and the case being of double jeopardy. The impugned orders are not sustainable in law. It has been stated that rejection of petitioner's request for supply of the copies of the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee also rendered the proceedings a nullity.
9. The respondent filed an elaborate reply contending that the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee were held strictly in accordance with law and the impugned orders were passed after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
10. It is well-settled that the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee are in the nature of a domestic inquiry and the University has fullest authority vis-a-vis the candidates taking the examination in the same manner as a parent or guardian. The presumption in such a case is that the candidate had been proceeded against properly and without any malice. The burden of proof would shift to the authorities only if the candidate is able to dispel the presumption by producing some evidence showing that the action against him was mala fide. Unless there is sufficient evidence it would be quite appropriate for the authorities, provided they give fair opportunity of hearing to the candidate, to proceed against him for violation of the rules and regulations without strictly adhering to the usual judicial procedure.
11. In the absence of sound supporting material, mere delay in deciding an enquiry cannot lead to a presumption that the same was result of mala fide intention. To begin with the petitioner had controverted allegations only on factual premises without attributing any malice against the supervisory staff, the Disciplinary Committee or other University authorities. Despite the fact that the petitioner had already been punished for use of unfair means in the Paper-III, he did not allege mala fides against the respondents in reply to the show-cause notice relating to Paper-I. In the case of Paper-III the incriminating continuation sheets were detected by the Centre Superintendent right in the examination hall. The serial numbers of these sheets do not correspond to the series of the sheets used/supplied on 30-7-1986. The Centre Superintendent or other staff on duty had no motive to launch an adverse action against the petitioner. It is especially so in the case of Paper-I held on 16-7-1986 in which the alleged irregularity of the petitioner was brought to light by the examiner of the paper and not by the staff on duty. The continuation sheets beyond the number of sheets issued to the petitioner were rightly considered to have been used in an unauthorised manner. The explanation of the petitioner regarding the difference of writing style on various continuation sheets was rightly turned down by the Disciplinary Committee.
12. The petitioner at a late stage asked for the supply of copies of the proceedings but the request was declined by the University Authorities. He,however, does not appear to have been prejudiced by this refusal because he had full opportunity of participation and was fully aware of the nature of allegations against him. Moreover, the whole record of the cases including the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee had been produced in the Court. The record of proceedings shows that the petitioner had not only been served with show-cause notices but was also provided fair opportunity of hearing before the Disciplinary Committee, in both the cases. At the instance of the petitioner the case was reconsidered by the reconstituted Disciplinary Committee which also concurred with the earlier findings.
13. The contention of the petitioner that he has been vexed twice has no force. As already stated, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in connection with the use of unfair means in the Paper-III. It was during the course of enquiry that the report of the examiner of Paper-I came to the notice of the Disciplinary Committee on the basis of which another case was registered against him. Thus, the two cases are based on offences committed in different papers and on different occasions. The causes for the two cases having accrued independently, the question of double jeopardy or of being punished twice for the same offence does not arise.
14. In view of the above discussion there is no substance in the contentions of the petitioner and in consequence the writ petition is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.