' The facts, in brief, leading to this Constitutional petition are that the petitioner appeared in Intermediate Examination (Annual), 1996, under Roll No,33841, in all the papers. Thereafter, he received Charge-Sheet No,253, dated 29-9-1996 in which it was alleged that objectionable material was recovered from his possession while he was appearing in the English Paper-'A' and as such had committed an offence under Rule 6.6 (II), as contained in Chapter 6 of the Rules given in the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore Revised Edition, 1986.
He was asked to submit his reply/explanation and also appear personally in his defence. The petitioner personally appeared before the Discipline Committee and refuted all the charges in writing. The Discipline Committee, vide its decision dated 27-10-1996, exonerated the petitioner and passed the following order:- "The candidate was heard in person. He totally refuted the charge of possessing any objectionable material. Scrutiny of the case shows that the attached material is very much mutilated. Moreover, the report is not complete and witnessed by anybody. The case is doubtful and the candidate is let off."
' On 30-10-1996, the office prepared a report stating that the petitioner has been exonerated and sought permission from the higher Authorities to communicate the decision of the Discipline Committee to the petitioner which was endorsed by the Controller of Examinations on 31-10-1996, but the Chairman of the Board passed an order on 5-11-1996 for going into appeal against the decision of the Discipline Committee. Thereafter, the matter was put up before the Appeal Committee. On 18-11-1996, the Appeal Committee while accepting the appeal of B.I.S.E. Debarred the petitioner for two examinations while passing the following orders: -- "Heard the candidate in person. Report of the Supervisory staff is complete and authenticated, therefore, decision of D.C. Is set aside as possession is proved. Appeal of B.I.S.E. Is accepted. The candidate is debarred for two exams."
' The Revision Committee, vide its order dated 21-12-1996, dismissed the petitioner's revision in the following manner:- "The candidate has been heard in person. Although the candidate denies the charge but there is no reason to differ with the Supervisory staff. The decision of the A.C. Is upheld and the appeal of the candidate is rejected."
' Hence, this Constitutional petition.
2. This petition was admitted to regular hearing on 11-3-1997 mainly on the ground that there is no provision in Board's Calendar providing an appeal to the Board against the unanimous decision of the Discipline Committee. The Board has contested the petition and has also referred to the ruling of the Board dated 7-9-1984, whereby a provision was made in the existing Rules, allowing the Controller of Examinations to file an appeal against any decision of the Discipline Committee without the permission of the Chairman of the Board and also to file a revision against any decision of the Appeal Committee.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the relevant record has also been produced by the representative of the respondent Board.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment allowing the Controller of Examinations to file an appeal before the Appeal Committee against the decision of the Discipline Committee was never adopted properly or acted upon and may be it has been dropped because the revised edition of the Calendar of the Board, published in 1986 by the Board itself, does not contain any such provision; that no appeal was ever filed in writing before the Appeal Committee against the decision of the Discipline Committee and, therefore, the decision of the Appeal Committee in the absence of any appeal is, illegal; that the appeal under the so-called decision dated 7-9-1984, whereby a provision of appeal has been made, is to be filed by the Controller of Examinations and in the instant case no such appeal was filed by the Controller of Examinations and in fact the Controller on 30-10-1996 had endorsed the office report whereby the office had sought permission to communicate the decision of the Discipline Committee to the petitioner; that the orders of the Appeal Committee as well as of the Revision Committee are not speaking orders and are liable to be set-aside on this ground alone, reliance in this regard has been placed on Abdul Janan v. University of Peshawar (PLD 1996 SC 709), wherein it has been held "---cases involving punishment of students have serious consequences on their career, therefore, the orders passed by the University Authorities inflicting punishment of students must at least be intelligible showing application of mind and capable of conveying the intention of the Authority passing the order".
5. On the other hand, while opposing this petition the learned Legal Adviser of the respondent- Board has submitted that the amendment in the Rules permitting an appeal against the decision of the Discipline Committee was made in 1984, after following all the proper procedure and has since then been acted upon and it cannot be said that it was never adopted or acted upon, reference in this regard has been made to Writ Petition No,16635 of 1996, the facts of which show that a revision was preferred by the. Controller of Examinations against the decision of the Appeal Committee, and Writ Petition No,6130 of 1997 in which an appeal was filed by the Board against the decision of the Discipline Committee. Learned counsel has next contended that it is the common practice being followed by the Board that once a decision is taken by the Chairman for going into an appeal against the decision of the Discipline Committee, no appeal in writing is preferred and whole of the case file is just put up before the Appeal Committee; that the Committee constituted by the Board acts like a domestic tribunal and while conducting disciplinary proceedings an educational institution is neither required to act as a Criminal Court nor is bound to follow the legal or procedural formalities of such a Court and need not write detailed orders while awarding punishment. Reliance in this regard is placed on Ahmed and 3 others v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology and another (PLD 1981 SC 464). Learned counsel lastly contended that for awarding of punishment under the rules for use of unfair means in the examination, it is not necessary that the candidate must be found to be in physical possession of objectionable material in the examination hall and the punishment can be awarded if on the material placed before the Discipline Committee it is satisfied that the candidate was in possession of or had accessible to him in the examination hall, of any such objectionable material. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. M. Massadaq Naseem Sindhoo (PLD 1973 Lahore 600 (D.B.).
5. In the instant case I am of the view that no appeal was filed by the Controller of Examinations before the Appeal Committee and, therefore, any decision given by the Appeal Committee against the decision of the Discipline Committee, without any appeal before it, is liable to be set aside. The above said rule relied upon by the respondent-Board (copy attached as Annexure R-6) permits only the Controller of Examinations to file appeal without the permission of the Chairman against any decision of the Discipline Committee before the Appeal Committee. In the instant case the Controller of Examinations did not file any appeal against the decision of the Discipline Committee and in fact endorsed the report of the office whereby permission was sought for conveying of the decision of the Discipline Committee to the petitioner. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that no appeal in writing was placed before the Appeal Committee which also shows that no such appeal was filed by the Controller of Examinations.
6. In view of the above mentioned, this petition is accepted and the orders of the Appeal Committee as well as of the Revision Committee are set aside and the order of the Discipline Committee dated 27-10-1996 is restored and the respondents are directed to declare the petitioner's result at once so that, if required, the petitioner is able to appear in the next examination under the rules. However, there is no order as to costs.