1. ' WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---We have heard this case on the basis of the record as well as on the basis of the position adopted by the five officers of the Shah Abdul Latif University, namely, Professor Abdul Ghani Meinon, Dean Faculty of Science, Professor Abdul Hakeem Kalwar, Chairman Statistics Department, Muhammad Nawaz, Lecturer, Imtiaz Ahmed, Lecturer and Niaz Ahmed Marri, Lecturer, whom, we have called with a. View to ascertain the facts. Professor Abdul. Ghani Memon has stated before us that in relation to the paper, in dispute he, in his capacity of Dean of Science, was taking rounds when, upon entering the examination room, where the aforesaid paper was being taken, he found that the petitioner was allowing the candidate, who was sitting on his left hand side, to copy from his answer book, such candidate being Ghulam Nabi Othi. He immediately caught 'hold of both the answer books. The Dean then asked Lecturer Niaz Ahmed Mani, who is present, to tally the two answer books and upon tallying such lecturer, who was also one of the invigilators, verified that the attempted portion of the two answer books was identical. Necessary, endorsements on the answer books, had been then and there made. In such circumstances, the copies could have been confiscated but a' lenient attitude was adopted and both the, candidates were allowed to complete the papers, awaiting the result of the decision of Examinations Discipline Committee. On the same subject, we have also heard the three other members of the invigilation staff out of whom Lecturers Imtiaz Ahmed and Muhammad Nawaz have confirmed the fact of the Dean catching the two candidates on the spot and asking for the answer books to, be tallied but both have stated that because they' were on the back side of the examination room they could not detect the copying itself. The version of the remaining invigilator, namely, Professor Abdul Hakeem Kalwar, who had also set the paper, is to the effect that he was moving about in the room with his back towards the two students when they are said to have been caught.
2. ' At this stage, it is pertinent to note that, after the answer books were given back to the two students for completing the paper, the student who was copying from the petitioner namely, Ghulam Nabi Othi, made a feeble attempt to answer the remaining questions but manifestly, on his own, could not go far and chose to leave in the midst while the examination went on.
3. ' In course of time the matter was referred to the Examinations Disciplinary Committee, which, upon hearing and recording the statement of the petitioner, because the other student failed to attend, cancelled the relevant paper of both the offending students. This petition, accordingly, has followed at the instance of the petitioner.
4. ' Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Shaikh for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a brilliant student and but for the disputed paper he was set to secure first position and that such a student could hardly have any reason or justification to have another copy from him which would have resulted only in a competitor being created for the first slot that he would have otherwise occupied. He has contended that, in any case, the paper of Multivariate Analysis from the discipline of Statistics in like a paper of Mathematics and similarity in answers of any two students could not in itself establish copying. Mr. Muhammad Nawaz has also argued that the entire act of catching the petitioner and the referred Other red-handed was fabricated and malicious, solely calculated to benefit another student, who happens to be closely related to a lecturer in the same University (lecturer's nephew) and it was on account of such base motive that the Dean of the Faculty stooped to the level of falsely implicating the petitioner.
5. Having examined the matter in some depth, we regret to say that this petition is totally devoid of merit and the petitioner, in view of what we have seen, ought not to have dared to bring the matter this far and should have rested satisfied with the cancellation of a single paper which was, in our view, an act of grace on the part of the University because, in such circumstances, the two students were liable to and should have been rusticated, if the facts were proved against them. In the context we have no doubt that if a false implication was leveled against the petitioner on account of the base motives, aforesaid, the members of the invigilation staff, some of whom appear to be inclined to look the other way, should have expressly said so but the relevant people have taken shelter behind the fact that they were in a particular portion of the examination room from where they could not check the misdoings going on. Besides, if there, were ill-motives the student, who was copying, would not have abandoned the test without completing the paper, which evidently he was doing pretty well till such time as he was apprehended. In addition, the Dean is shown to have been so scrupulous as not to have even sat on the Examinations Disciplinary Committee for the simple reason, as he stated before us, that he chanced to be the person who had laid information of misconduct and it did not seem proper that he should sit as a judge in a matter where he was also the complainant.
6. ' Above all, we have ourselves compared the answer books, which are on the file of Mr. Kadir Bux Memon and photo copies whereof we have required him to place on the record. Such copies have been supplied to Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Shaikh as well. It would seem that the alleged culprits were caught at the time when only the first portion of the paper was being answered and that too, at the stage, Other had not yet completed. The first answer of Other was ostensibly correct i.e, the portion attempted till such time as he was caught. Beyond this he could not go probably because he was caught in the act of copying and further copying was no longer feasible. Therefore, he could not complete the next answer then in hand. Copying on Other's part thus stands clearly established. What is more, we notice that this student was so uninitiated that he could not even properly only the first question. Thus, letters 'AB' which in the peculiar way of the petitioner's handwriting, were confusingly written somewhat as 'A 3' were copied as 'A 3' and not as 'AB'. This squirrely shows that he did not understand even that which he was copying and the error occurred solely because of the peculiar way in which the petitioner writes the letter '13' which, to an uninitiated person, appears to be the numerical '3'. This again establishes copying and more relevantly copying from the answer book of the petitioner alone.
7. ' Now, we may further take up the contentions of Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Shaikh. If the petitioner was assisting another to copy from his answer book the particular person, who was being so assisted, could hardly be a competitor of the petitioner for the first position for the simple reason that one who stoops to copying can hardly be worth the salt on his own. Furthermore, as to routinely identical answers of a paper, namely, Multivariate Analysis it may be correct that such answers have the semblance of answers as in a paper of mathematics but that does not mean that every single letter of the alphabet or numerical should be the same and in the same place and even the drawing of brackets and lines should be identical, which is what is to be noticed in the two papers when we compare them. Like finding was returned when the two papers were tallied and the verdict of the Examinations Disciplinary Committee was handed down. As to the allegation that the implication of the petitioner was with a view to benefit another student, related in terms as above, there is no material placed on record to show that there was a peculiar relationship between the Dean and the uncle of such student and the mere existence of the alleged relationship cannot result in the vindication of the petitioner's plea.
8. In such circumstances, while we are apprised that the petitioner secured excellent marks in the other papers, we are still of the view that a-very lenient punishment was levied on the petitioner.
9. On -principle, he should have been rusticated and on the contrary only the offending paper was cancelled. -Accordingly, we ourselves taking a. Moderate view would uphold that finding but would also direct that his remaining papers for such examination should also be cancelled though the petitioner should not be rusticated so that his future is not totally ruined. Such order is passed because the petitioner has had the audacity to come this far in spite of patent wrong doing on his part.
10. ' We do not, however, remain content with passing the above order.; We would also, at the same time, direct that the University should hold an inquiry against the invigilators Who were posted in the examination room and if it is found that they were derelict in the performance of duties and in the discharge of their functions, which apparently at least some of them were; disciplinary action, including 'dismissal from service should be taken against, the [ offender(s). Such is necessary because unless the invigilators collude with offending students, students would rarely dare to indulge in the reprehensible at of copying. Invigilators thus are more liable for severe action than students themselves. Such inquiry, we expect, would be held within a short time and report shall be submitted to this Court. With these observations the petition, is dismissed.
11. ' At this stage, Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Shaikh says that there were also other grounds taken. By him in the petition, which he could not urge. We are concerned only with what was urged before us and on such basis we have recorded the foregoing findings. Nothing else was argued before us.