' The two petitioners were the students of respondent-University at the relevant time and on account of an incident of firing in the University premises in which one of the students was killed and some other injured, the petitioners alongwith number of other students were proceeded against under the disciplinary rules and vide the order, dated 21-9-1995, the Vice-Chancellor, in exercise of the powers vested in him under Regulation 18-B of the University of Agriculture Faisalabad Students (Discipline and Conduct) Regulations, 1978, and on the recommendation of the Students Affairs Committee, expelled the petitioners from the University for four semesters with effect from winter semester 1994-95. The petitioners preferred an appeal against this action which is claimed to have been rejected on 22-4-1996. By way of this Constitutional petition filed on 5-9- 1996, the vires and the correctness of the two orders is being called in question.
2. In the report and parawise comments submitted under the signatures of Professor Dr. M. Anwar- ul-Haq, Vice-Chancellor, it is urged that the action taken is correct and legal. Alongwith the parawise comments, copy of the report of the Committee consisting of three Senior Teachers has been annexed. It has also been pointed out that petitioners were duly notified through Appendix-II of the charges against them and were called upon to appear before the Inter Faculty Advisory Committee on the given time and date to defend themselves.
3. In support of this petition, learned counsel has contended that the action was taken without prior notice and, therefore, suffers from serious legal flaw. It is also urged that in the police investigation of the same incident, the petitioners have been found to be not involved.
4. None of the contentions has any force. The findings of the police in such cases may be relevant but not decisive because it is for the University Authorities to maintain discipline on the Campus.
The perusal of the report of the Senior Teachers annexed with the parawise comments shows that the petitioners were involved in this incident. Not a word has been uttered against any member of the Committee and, in the absence of any or malice, the report and finding of the Committee are entitled to respect. In any cse, it would not lie within the Province of this Court to assume the function of the University management and to substitute its view and even if this was possible, there is nothing on record to come to a finding different from the one arrived at by the Committee.
As a matter of principle the University Authorities have to be given full freedom to act in such situation and interference by the Courts should be the minimum and that only to see that University Authorities acted within the precincts of law and in honest manner. As noted, there is no allegation of or mala fides and as such no interference is called for in the findings of the respondent-University in so far as the involvement of the petitioners is concerned and the action taken against them.
5. The documents appended with the parawise comments show that the petitioners were duly notified of the allegations and were associated in the enquiry. Learned counsel submits that the notice was issued after the action has been taken. This is correct but, according to the comments submitted by the Vice-Chancellor an immediate action was required to be taken to maintain calm and discipline at the Campus. The requirement of natural justice would be met even if soon after taking the action the aggrieved party is notified of the reasons of the same. In any case, the initial defect, if any, in these proceedings stood cured as the respondents were duly associated in the appellate proceedings and also heard. No grievance has been made before me that the petitioners were not heard at the appellate stage.
6. None of the contentions has any force. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Writ .