' The relevant facts, in brief, are that the petitioner appeared in the M.B.,B.S. 1st Professional Examination held in May/June, 1994 under Roll No,236. After many months she received Memo.
No,8444/U-94 dated 4-8-1994 from the Secretary, Disciplinary Committee and Assistant Controller (Secrecy), University of the Punjab, which runs as follows:-- "You appeared in M.B.,B.S. 1st Prof. Supply. Examination of 1993 under Roll No,236. On 2-5-1994 while you were taking examination in Paper Anatomy (A) ten printed leaves bearing notes relevant to the syllabus/question paper were recovered from your possession."
Accordingly, the petitioner was required to submit explanation to the above charges and show cause within ten days why she be disqualified under Regulations 12 and 13 of the University Calendar. On 8-8-1994 the petitioner submitted explanation denying the charges. She explained in the following words:-- "The matter is that, in the paper of Anatomy (A) held on 2-5-1994, some of the students of college and outsiders had fully controlled our centre. Some other students were also involved in this matter who were conducting a paper. Superintendent was also involved in it. When University checking team reached at the spot, the students who were involved in using unfair means threw this cheating material here and there. Some of those papers fell near my seat. In the meanwhile, Superintendent came to me, asked about my roll number and took away those papers. He did not tell me that he was taking any severe action against me and did not take any signature or statement by me. I am clean-handed in this matter. This is not true that the cheating material was mine or was involved in using unfair means."
' Subsequently, the petitioner received Memorandum dated 8-9-1994 from the University (Annexure "C") informing her that her Answer Book in Anatomy Paper was cancelled under Regulation 12(a) of the University Calendar, ' Volume I, 1990. The petitioner then made representation to the Vice-Chancellor of the University.
Alongwith this representation she submitted certificates issued by Dr. Syed Ghulam Ahmed, Professer of Anatomy, Allama Iqbal Medical College, Lahore, and Professor Dr. Nasim Feroze, Professor of Anatomy, Federal Post-Graduate Medical Institute, Lahore, testifying that the petitioner was a good student. The representation of the petitioner was, however, rejected and the previous decision to cancel the Answer Book was upheld. An intimation to that effect was communicated to the petitioner through Memorandum dated 21-11-1994 stating that the Vice-Chancellor referred the case to the Disciplinary Committee for reconsideration, but the Committee upheld its previous decision. The petitioner also made a representation to the Chancellor of the University which was sent to the Vice-Chancellor University of the Punjab, Lahore. However, this representation also met the same fate and its rejection was communicated to the petitioner through the Memorandum dated 30-1-1995.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the examination in question was held on 2-5- 1994 whereas the charge-sheet was issued by the respondent University on 4-8-1994, after a lapse of more than three months and that the charge-sheet was an afterthought and a concoction. He further submitted that the complainant (Superintendent in the Examination Hall) was, as a matter of fact, in league with the students who were using unfair means and made the petitioner and another student a scapegoat to conceal his own misdeeds. He also submitted that reasonable opportunity was not given to the petitioner by the Disciplinary. Comminute and the appellate authority.
3. The only evidence on record against the petitioner is the written complaint made by the Superintendent of the Examination Hall. On my direction, learned counsel for the respondents produced the original record in Court which also contained original complaint. It is a handwritten application from the Superintendent, First Professional M.B.,B.S., Allama Iqbal Medical College, Lahore, addressed to the Deputy Controller (Secrecy), Punjab University, Lahore, and bears the signature of one Khalid Rasool. The subject-matter of this application is in different hand and ink from that of the signature of Khalid Rasool. There are cuttings and over-writings at two places. The year with the date has been scored out and over-written. The scribe/author of the application and its signatory did not appear before the Disciplinary Committee or the appellate authority. Their statements were also not recorded, nor were they subjected to cross-examination. Thus, the only evidence produced against the petitioner before the Disciplinary Committee is not legal evidence, nor could it be used against the petitioner unless its author and signatory were produced as witnesses and the petitioner was allowed to cross-examine them to dig out the truth. It was necessary in view of the fact that the petitioner had alleged mala fides against the complainant.
The petitioner was denied reasonable and proper opportunity in violation of the principle of natural justice. In somewhat similar situation a learned Division Bench of this Court in "Alauddin v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education" (PLD 1971 A Lahore 829) quashed the order of cancellation of the result issued by the Board, basing their decision on judgments of the learned Supreme Court in University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmed (PLD 1965 SC 90).
4. According to the record, the paper of Anatomy-A was examined and marked by Professor Dr. Naseem Feroze, Professor of Anatomy, who in answer to Memo. No,8538/U-94 dated 11-8-1994 of the Assistant Controller (Secrecy) and Secretary, Disciplinary Committee wrote that, "The material recovered is from The syllabus and related to the questions 2. It appears that both the students have not copied in exact words. Answer Books are marked." This also goes to show that the incriminating material was not used by the petitioner nor did she copy her answers from the same.
In this connection Regulations 12 and 13 of the University Calendar presuppose access to the incriminating material and its possession beyond reasonable doubt in order to punish any student.
Regulation No,13 is not attracted as it is not even alleged that the petitioner had copied from the said material.
5. As observed above, there is no legal proof on record to establish that the alleged incriminating material was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The complaint states that this material was found on the person of the candidates in their purses during the examination. The petitioner has denied that the incriminating material was recovered from her or that she carried purse on 2-5-1994 when the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. In such circumstances, the respondent University had to establish through legal evidence that the petitioner was carrying a purse on 2-5-1994 in the Examination Hall and also that the incriminating material was found in the purse which she was carrying. There is not an iota of evidence in support of the charges, except the complaint dated 2-5-1994 signed by Khalid Rasool. The complainant has not appeared before the Disciplinary Committee or the appellate authority in support of the complaint, nor subjected to cross-examination. His bare assertion in the complaint was not sufficient to spoil educational career of the petitioner about whose good educational background, two of her Professors have testified.
6. The result is that this writ petition is accepted. The orders of the Disciplinary Committee and the appellate authority cancelling the Answer Book of the petitioner in Anatomy A Paper are set aside and the respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner in the said Paper in accordance with the marking done by Professor Dr. Nasim Feroze, who was the concerned Examiner. No order as to costs.