' This is a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution filed by (1) All Akbar and (2) Muzaffar Ran, two students of intermediate class, who appeared in the Intermediate (Annual) Examination, 1975 under Roll Nos. 13040, and 13041 respectively. They were issued a charge-sheet copy, of which is Annexure 'A' accusing them for an offence under rule 8 (1) of Chapter VI of the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Multan (1969 Edition), alleging that "while appearing in the 1975 Inter. (Annual) Examination in Physics Paper II on 7-5-1975 at Khanewal-2 Centre, were detected received illegal assistance from the candidate, Roll No, 13041/13040 or copied from the book". The Disciplinary Committee conducted certain proceedings and was also of the opinion that the candidates were guilty of charge 8 (v) (of the regulations) as well. The aforesaid regulation deals with cases of "smuggling in an answer-book or a continuation sheet into or out of the examination hall". The Disciplinary Committee finding the petitioners guilty disqualified them from passing the particular examination and appearing in the subsequent three examinations (supplementary and annual). The petitioners filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the Appellate Committee. The petitioners have come up in writ petition against the aforesaid proceedings and orders to this Court.
2. The petitioners had applied inter a/ia for a certified copy of the complaint received by the Board through sub-examiner or any other source, but it is a common ground that the same was not given to them. A photostat copy of that document, however, has been placed on record in the form of Annexure 'A' along with the written statement of the respondents, Annexure 'A' is actually a report of the sub-examiner in which he had opined that the answers of the two petitioners were identical with one another which indicated a case of copying. He had further reported that some questions of the answer books concerned had been cancelled, nevertheless, he marked those questions and reported that the matter should be clarified from the Centre Superinter dent as to why the aforesaid two questions were cancelled and if the two candidates were found copying in the Hall then why was not a case registered against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this background argued that the orders impugned were without lawful authority, because (I) the petitioners were not supplied a copy of the complaint against them and (ii) the charge against them was under rule 8 (i) which deals with "giving or receiving assistance for solving a question paper, allowirg any other candidate to copy from his answer-book or using or attempting to use these or other means of solving question paper which may be held as unfair by the competent authority", whereas the finding or the View taken by the authorities concerned was that it was a case of rule 8 (v) namely, "smuggling in an answer-book or a continuation sheet into or out of the examination hall"- of which however they were not specifically charged or accused. In my opinion both these objections are formidable. The petitioners should have been apprised of the exact material against them and the failure on the part of the authorities concerned to provide the necessary material to the petitioners was without lawful authority. The next thing to be taken note of is that earlier the charge was of having copied the answer in the answer-book which implied that the handwriting in the answer books concerned was of the respective candidates and that they had answered the relevant questions from some book or paper etc. The ultimate view, however, is that the entire answer books of both the condidates were not in their own handwriting and that they had been smuggled in the examination hall. That this was the view of the authorities concerned is supported from the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee shown by the Departmental Representative where the specimen handwriting of both the candidates was taken and it was found that it did not tally with that contained in the answer books. This will show that the case ultimately found was totally different from the one which was charged against them. Since the defects hereinbefore mentioned are sufficient to invalidate the proceedings initiated and the orders passed against the petitioners, it is not necessary to refer to the other points which were being raised by the learned counsel.
3. The upshot of the above discussion is that the proceedings and orders of the respondent authority stand vitiated due to non-observance of the law on the subject and shall have to be declared as to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence against the petitioners which I hereby do. The writ petition is accepted and the impugned orders are quashed. This, however, shall not debar the authorities concerned from proceeding with this matter in accordance with law after following the necessary formalities and giving due opportunity to the petitioners to meet the accusations against them. There shall be no order as to costs.