' Vide my order dated the 17th of April, 1995, this Constitutional petition was accepted, for reasons to be recorded later.
2. The reasons for accepting this writ petition and also the facts leading to its acceptance are now being recorded hereunder.
3. Mr. Irfan Nadir, a student of the University of the Punjab (respondent No,1) took the 1st Professional B-Pharmacy Annual Examination held by the University of the Punjab in September, 1992. The result of the said Examination was declared by the University in December, 1992. Mr. Ifran Nadir petitioner was declared successful in the said examination and was placed in Second Division.
4. However, the petitioner received a letter, dated the 7th of August, 1993 from the Disciplinary Committee through its Secretary, University of the Punjab, Lahore (respondent No,2), through ordinary post, informing the petitioner that the petitioner had been disqualified for a period of three years from taking any examination held by the University till 1995 because he had used unfair means in the Ist Professional B-Pharmacy Annual Examination which was held in September, 1992.
5. On receiving tie aforementioned letter of the 7th of August, 1993, the petitioners alongwith his father sought an interview with the Secretary of the Disciplinary Committee (respondent No,2) and was handed an undelivered closed envelope addressed to the petitioner on the 18th of August, 1993, containing a show-cause notice, dated the 20th of July, 1.993. The petitioner was informed that the allegation against the petitioner was that his twin brother had impersonated for him in the Mathematics paper of the 1st Professional-Pharmacy Annual Examination held in September, 1992.
The petitioner submitted an application on the 21st of August, 1993 to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Punjab (respondent No,1) stating that no show-cause notice had been issued to him and no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him prior to the passing of the order of disqualification and requested that the said ex parte order be recalled.
6. Since the petitioner did not receive any reply to his application of the 21st of August, 1993, therefore, the petitioner submitted a second application to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Punjab (respondent No,1) on the 8th of September, 1993, complaining inter alia that no action has been taken on his earlier application, dated the 21st of August, 1993 and praying that he be allowed to take the Second Professional B-Pharmacy Annual Examination scheduled to commence on the 13th of September, 1993. This application also did not bear any fruit. The petitioners kept repeating his applications and representations to the Vice-Chancellor of the Punjab University but without any result.
7. The petitioners kept purusing his case before the respondents and appeared before the Disciplinary Committee also with his twin brother Nauman Nadir. The specimens of the handwriting of both the brothers were taken by the Secretary, Disciplinary Committee. However, the petitioner was not shown any material that was used against him by the Disciplinary Committee before taking the impugned decision of disqualification nor was he provided any opportunity of asking any question from any person or authority who had used any material which may have found the basis of the impugned decision against him.
8. Since the Second Professional B-Pharmacy Examination was scheduled for the 27th of February, 1994 and since no decision had been taken on the petitioner's repeated applications and representations, the petitioner was constrained to bring a Constitutional petition to this Court by way of Writ Petition No, 1436/94 on the 2nd of February, 1994. My learned brother Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J., vide his Lordship's order, dated the 9th of February, 1994 was pleased to dispose of the petition by directing the respondents to let the petitioners take the examination provisionally and- to decide the applications and representations of the petitioner by the 15th of February, 1994.
9. After the direction of this Court, the petitioners made an application to the Secretary, Disciplinary Committee, University of the Punjab (respondent No,2) seeking permission to deposit the necessary fee for taking the examination in question which was followed by yet another application made by the father of the petitioner. The petitioner was called for appearing before the Disciplinary Committee on the 14th of February, 1994. Accordingly the petitioner appeared before the said Committee and submitted yet another application/representation and again sought permission to deposit the prescribed fee for taking the forthcoming examination. Again no decision was taken by the respondents and no order was passed.
10. In these circumstances the petitioner was constrained to bring yet another Constitutional petition by way of Writ Petition No, 3020 of 1994, wherein my learned brother Ihsan-ul-Haq Chaudhary, J., vide his Lordship's order, dated the 20th of March, 1994 was pleased to call for report and parawise comments and also issued a telegraphic notice to the respondents on petitioner's application for interim relief for the 21st of March, 1994.
11. On the 21st of March, 1994 my learned brother Ihsan-ul-Haq Chaudhary, J. Was informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the representation of the petitioner had already been rejected by the Secretary of the Disciplinary Committee (respondent No,2) and that the decision had already been approved by the Vice-Chancellor of the University vide order dated the 5th of March, 1994. It was asserted by the learned counsel for the respondents that this decision was communicated to the petitioner vide a letter issued by the Secretary of the Disciplinary Committee which was sent on the 20th of March, 1994. On the above statement of the learned counsel for the respondents my learned brother Ihsan-ul-Haq Chaudhary, J., vide his Lordship's order, dated the 21st of March, 1994 was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition No, 3020 of 1994 as infructuous. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner was constrained to bring this third Constitutional petition, challenging the order, dated the 7th of August, 1993 passed by the Secretary of the Disciplinary Committee (respondent No,2), of his disqualification from taking any examination held by the University of the Punjab earlier than the 1st Annual Examination of 1995, under Regulation No,14 of the University Calendar, Volume I for the year 1990 and the final order, dated the 5th of March, 1994 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, approving the rejection of the petitioner's applications and representations.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders are in violation of the established principle of audi alteram partem, that the petitioner had in his application, dated the 21st of September, 1993, without prejudice to his innocence in the matter, offered to re-appear in the Mathematics paper of the Ist Professional B-Pharmacy Examination but his offer was not accepted which proves the bona fide of the petitioner and mala fide of the respondents, that the members of the Disciplinary Committee who examined the specimens of the handwritings of the petitioner and his brother were of the opinion that the petitioner himself has solved the said paper and finally that thepetitioner has been victimized by the respondents on account of mala fides due to actions of his father who had made a written complaint to the Chairman of the Pakistan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association against the Chairman and the Dean, respectively, of the Faculty of Pharmacy of the University of the Punjab, of having received illegal gratification in the performance of their official duties and this complaint was carried by way of a news item in the local Press.
13. The petition was contested by the respondent and parawise comments were submitted by the Secretary of the Disciplinary Committee of the University of the Punjab, Lahore (respondent No,2).
Annexure R/1 of the parawise comments reveals that there was an anonymous and undated letter/complaint against the petitioner. Annexure-R/3 dated the 20th of July, 1993 contains the charge levelled against the petitioner by the Secretary of the Disciplinary Committee (respondent No,2) and reads as follows:-- "You were allotted Roll No,108 to appear in B. Pharmacy Ist. Prof. Annual Examination of 1992. While processing your answer books it has been detected that you cheated in the examination by way of impersonation."
' Thus, the charge against the petitioner was not that somebody impersonated him, rather it was the other way round that he cheated by way of impersonation. Annexure R/6 contains 'a cryptic order, dated the 5th of August, 1993 which reads as follows:-- "Three years under Regulation 14."
' Annexures R/8 is the opinion of the handwriting expert, obtained by the respondents and under the title comparison of the specimen writings, the expert has opined as follows:-- "Specimen writings on the sheet marked '2' are disguised, as these show inconsistent from variations in repeated letters and words, therefore, no opinion can be given regarding the specimen writings on sheet marked ' 2' ."
14. It is now well-settled that Educational Institutions exercise a parental jurisdiction over its students. Students refer to their Schools, Colleges and Universities as their alma mater: Universities, Colleges and Schools are not expected to give at a step-motherly treatment to its students. It has been settled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of The University of Dacca through its Vice-Chancellor v. Zakir Ahmed reported in PLD 1965 Supreme Court 90 that in matters of expulsion of students by University Authorities for alleged indiscipline and misconduct, the students have the right to be heard because the principle of natural justice is applicable in cases of ex post facto investigation that there is a duty to observe the principle of audi alteram partem. This view of the Supreme Court has been consistently followed in subsequent cases by the Supreme Court itself and all the High Courts. Some of these cases are as follows:--
(i) Shaukat Ali v. The Controller of Examinations, University of the Punjab, Lahore and another (1981 SCMR 364);
(ii) Ahmad and 3 others v. Vice-Chancellor, of Engineering and Technology and another (PLD 1981 Supreme Court 464), and
(iii) Shahid Javid Malik v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and another (PLD 1980 Lahore 176).
15. The only material which seems to have been used against the petitioner is the comparison of the handwriting of the petitioner and that of his twin brother Nauman.
16. It is now settled law that although it is true that under the Evidence Act comparison of handwriting is a legitimate enough method of supporting evidence and the view of person competent to express opinions may he in many cases of considerably value, the opinions of those who have not carefully studied the art of calligraphy is not as a rule of very great utility. Indeed so uncertain and inexact is the science of the study of calligraphy that it has been for some years past the tendency to regard evidence even of experts as of somewhat inconclusive character.
Reference in this context may usefully be made to the following cases:--
(i) Mt. Bibi Kaniz Zainab and others v. Syed Mobarak Hossain and others (AIR 1924 Patna 234);
(ii) J. G. Galstaun v. Sonatan Pal and others (AIR 1925 Calcutta 485);
(iii) Kessarbai v. Jethabbai Jivan (AIR 1928 Privy Council 277);
(iv) Darshan Singh v. Parbhu Singh (AIR. (33) 1946 Allahabad 67);
(v) Shahid Javid Malik v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and another (PLD 1980 Lahore 176) and
(vi) Ch. Abdul Hamid v. Deputy Commissioner and others (1985 SCMR 359).
17. Regulation No,20-A of the Calendar of the University of the Punjab for the year 1990, Volume I which is based on the principle of audi alteram partem requires that:-- "Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, no punishment shall be imposed unless a student accused of using unfair means in an examination has been given a reasonable opportunity- of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken with respect to him."
18. In the present case, admittedly no such opportunity was given to the petitioners before passing the impugned orders. It is not the University's case that the petitioners refused to accept the notice.
On the contrary the petitioners cried himself hoarse asking for an opportunity to plead his innocence. The earlier notices did not contain any specific allegation against the petitioner. Finally the specific allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner had cheated by impersonation. Yet it is the University's case that the petitioner's brother Nauman impersonated the petitioner which is a complete reversal of the charge against the petitioner. The impugned order is not speaking order but a cryptic order not disclosing any reason whatsoever. The complainant was not examined and the complaint itself is anonymous. No direct evidence was led against the petitioner, no documents were shown to him, even the handwriting expert , was not examined and, therefore, a reasonable opportunity of defending himself was not given to the petitioner.
19. It was on account of these reasons that this petition was accepted vide order, dated the 7th of April, 1995.