' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Through this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, Hussain Saeed--petitioner has laid challenge to the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 4-5-1998 passed in his Constitution Petition bearing W.P. No,3025/98 whereby the same was dismissed with the result that orders dated 18-10-1997 and 3-2-1998 respectively of the Disciplinary Committee and the respondent-Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore disqualifying him for taking three examinations in the Intermediate, Part II till Annual Examination, 1998, were upheld,
2. Brief facts leading to the instant petition are that the petitioner sat in the Board of Intermediate Part II Examination under Roll Number 28643. On 24-4-1997 he, according to the allegations sat in Mathematic II Paper but ran away with the answer book. The matter was reported to the Police on the same day. He was charge-sheeted on 16-6-1997 and to show cause as to why he should not be penalised under Regulation No,6.8(vi). Petitioner submitted his reply on 24-6-1997 and, after hearing the Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, Invigilator, Sub Examiner and the petitioner, the Disciplinary Committee found him guilty with the consequence that the was disqualified from taking three examinations till Annual Examination, 1998. The Disciplinary Committee recommended the constitution of a High Power Committee to find out the complicity of the employees of the Board in his case.
3. Petitioner preferred appeal against the decision of the Disciplinary Committee but the same was rejected on 10-12-1997. Failing in his further revision, vide order dated 3-2-1998, he made Constitution Petition bearing W.P. No,3025 of 1998. The learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, vide the impugned judgment dated 4-5-1998, dismissed the same with, inter alia, the following observations:-- "6. During the course of extensive hearing the whole thrust of the arguments of Mr. Javaid Shaukat Malik, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has been to emphasize, reiterate and highlight the inconsistency in the statements of the concerned officials. As noted, this inconsistency was also considered by the Committee and the explanation of the Superintendent and other officials that the second statement was made as a matter of strategy to avoid any ugly situation, was accepted. This view cannot be said to be perverse. It is c'ear that when the petitioner appeared in the Examination Centre on the next date his father was also there. He was questioned as to why he ran away with the answer book on 24-4-1997. It was then that he took the position that he did not run away with the script. His father intervened and in the situation which was developing and in view of the threats extended, as has been claimed, the examination staff acted to appease the petitioner and his father. This explanation has been accepted by all the officials/members of the Committees/Board. It cannot be said to be perverse. As. Is apparent from the, record produced by learned counsel for the Board, the committee consisting of three Senior Professors has also found the Chief Secrecy Officer as well as the Sub-Examiner involved in the affairs. They have already been proceeded against. Not a word has been uttered by Mr. Javaid Shaukat Malik, Advocate against the members of the Committee or any other official of Board so as to show that somebody was inimical towards the petitioner. No allegation of mala fide has been levelled, muchless substantiated. In the circumstance therefore no interference whatsoever is called for by this Court.
7. The argument that the petitioner as well as his brothers had been enjoying excellent academic record is not relevant to decide the controversy. What this Court has to see is whether the findings of the respondents-Board to the effect that charge against the petitioner stands proved is correct or not, and whether the penalty imposed or action is in accordance with law or not. The past attainments of the family are irrelevant in this exercise."
4. Hence this petition.
5. Mr. Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of this petitioner has, reiterated the arguments noticed in the afore-quoted excerpts from the impugned judgment. According to him, the learned Judge in Chambers is in error in not considering that the petitioner was not heard when the allegations against him were being inquired into at the revisional stage. The statement of the Superintendent, copy whereof is available at pages 128 to 130 of the Paper Book, was also referred in support of the contention that he/Superintendent Zafar Iqbal requested for keeping the said statement as secret from the petitioner as also other students and petitioner's father, who were present outside the office. According to the learned counsel, the proceedings in their entirety are tainted with mala fides and for the said reasons alone the petitioner should not have been penalized by the respondent-Board. He, has referred to the University of Dacca through its Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar, University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmed (PLD 1965 SC 90) and Abdus Saboor Khan v. (1) Karachi University and (2) Controller of Examinations, Karachi University (PLD 1966 SC 536) in support of the plea that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained on account of the same being violative of the ratio decidendi in the precedent cases that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing by the respondent- Board.
6. A perusal of the material available on the record clearly shows that the basic contours of the case against the petitioner were well known to all concerned, including him. On the subject of: "Misplacement of Maths Paper 2 held on 24-4-1997, By Negligence of Centre Staff" there has been a consensus between him and the respondent authorities that the case was unravelled right from the day one and the petitioner knew its implications. The alleged inconsistency in the statements of the concerned officials was duly considered by the Disciplinary Committee and so was the explanation of the Superintendent and other officials. The fact that. The second statement of the respondent Superintendent was a part of the strategy with a view to avoiding any ugly situation was rightly accepted by all concerned. What is not disputed by and on behalf of the petitioner is that on the succeeding day the petitioner came to the Examination Hall accompanied by his father and when he was questioned as to why he ran away with the Answer Book on 24-4-1997, he took up the stance that he had not done any such thing. When petitioner's father took sides, the Examination Staff had to put up with the same with a view to appeasing him and his father. Looked at from this angle and coupled with the fact that the Committee consisting of as many as three Senior Professors has also found the Chief Secrecy Officer and the Sub-Examiner involved in the whole affairs and directed appropriate proceedings against them without any demur, the presumption of regularity attaching to all acts before the parental authorities of the Education Institution concerned has not been rebutted in any measure whatsoever. We are of the considered view that to avoid a situation of sorts which was staring every one in the face, all concerned proceeded in the cause to achieve the objective of avoiding any ugly situation lest the charged atmosphere around attains gigantic proportions, to the chagrin of every body.
7. Confronted with this situation learned counsel was of the view that the learned Judge in Chambers was not quite right to decline interference in the matter on technical grounds. His precise plea was that the requisite standards determining the limits of the opportunity of hearing to an individual similarly placed as the petitioner have escaped the notice of the learned Judge in Chambers and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the writ/s prayed for in his Constitution Petition bearing W.P. No,3025 of 1998. We are afraid even this aspect of the matter cannot stand a proper scrutiny. It is not the case of the petitioner that any one of the members of the Disciplinary Committee or any other official of the Board as also sub-committees etc. Was inimically disposed towards him. The action taken against the petitioner concurrently by the appropriate forums cannot be substituted with a judgment to the contrary by the High Court in the exercise of its Constitutional Jurisdiction. It has already been held that the petitioner changed his stand/case between 24-4-1997 and 6-2-1998 more than once. It is not disputed that the involvement of the Chief Secretary Officer and the Sub-Examiner in the affair was fully noticed by the respondents. In fact it is an admitted position that they have been proceeded against according to the rules/regulations/statutes in relation to their conduct as employees of the Board.
8. Looked at from whatever angle the impugned judgment has proceeded on the attending facts and circumstances of the case of the Board against the petitioner. We are not inclined to the view that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing before taking action against him. The reliance on the precedent cases is misplaced in that University of Dacca (supra) does not advance his case for the simple reason that the action against the petitioner was not the result of mala fides on the part of the respondent authorities to entitle him to the discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution. Similarly, Abdus Saboor Khan (supra) is of no help to the petitioner who had been heard, allowed to put forward his side of the story before the authorities of the Board at all the stages of the case and has not denied their right to consider the available material against him, including the statements made by the Officials of the Board which were supported by other contemporaneous material coming from untainted sources.
9. No other point was urged.
10. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed and leave refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.