1. CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- The present writ petition arises out of the facts that the petitioners appeared in B.Com, Part II Annual Examination, 1996. Respondent No. 1 issued a charge-sheet to petitioner No. 1 on 24.10.1996 to the following effect:- "It is alleged that you have replaced the inner pages of your answer book in paper III of B-Com.
2. Part-1, Annual Examination, 1996 by new ones in collaboration with officials posted in the University Post Office. Thus you have been found guilty of using unfair means and cheating the University in Examination and are liable to be disqualified for future Examinations.
3. Respondent No. 2 issued similar charge-sheets to the other petitioners on 24.10.1994 with the following modifications:- Petitioner No. 2 in Paper I, III, IV; Petitioner No. 3 in Paper IV and V (a)
4. Petitioner No. 4 in Paper I, II, III, IV. V(a), V(b)
5. Petitioner No. 5 in Paper I, II, III, IV, V(a), V(b)
6. On 24.10.1996 respondent No. 2 issued notice to the petitioners for appearance before Disciplinary Committee on 1.12.1996. The Disciplinary Committee after providing personal hearing disqualified the petitioners and the answering, respondent issued the notification on 19. 12.1996 and the petitioners are disqualified as follows:- Muhammad Nadeem Anwar Nazir Ahmad Bhatti Faruq Mirza Zika-ur-Rehman Tahir Iqbal disqualified for one year with fine of Rs. 1000/- disqualified for 2 years with fine of Rs.1000/-.
7. Disqualified for two years with fine of Rs.1000/-.
8. Disqualified for 3 years with fine of Rs.2000/- disqualified for 3 years with fine of Rs.2000/-. {{TEXT MISARRANGED}} The petitions filed representations before the Vice Chancellor. Hence the petitioners filed the present writ petition against their disqualifications.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that they appeared in the said Examination and solved their papers iii the centre. They handed over the Answer Books to the Supervisory staff on the respective date and time in the Centre. He further argued-that it is the duty and obligation of the Supervisory Staff to send the Answer Books .To the office of the answering respondent and subsequently it is also the duty and obligation of the respondents to send the Answer Books to the.
9. Examiners and received back from the Examiners, therefore, it is the negligence and omission of the respondents. Therefore, petitioners should not be penalized for the actions or omissions of the respondents or their employees. He further argued that the decision of the Disciplinary Committee is without lawful authority as the supervisory staff were not called by them in the witness-box.
10. Consequently the petitioners were not provided opportunity to cross-examine them. The allegations levelled against them were not proved, therefore, actions of the respondents are not in accordance with law.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents, controverted that the petitioners mis-stated that they had filed representations/appeals before the Vice Chancellor and this fact is duly denied by the respondents in reply of para 9 of the writ petition, on merits. The action of the Answering respondent is in accordance with law and the respondents did not violate any provisions of law or Regulations of the answering respondent. He further argued that writ petition is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the petitioner filed a joint writ petition without proper stamp ropers. The answering respondent is a domestic Tribunal, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. Since the petitioners have not levelled any allegation of mala fide against the respondents, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. He further argued that it is not necessary and obligation to call the supervisory staff in the witness-box. On merits he relied upon the reply of para 10 of the writ petition which is to the following effect:- "...... The inner pages of the answer book of the petitioners are not the same which were supplied to them at the Examination Centre. The inner pages of the answer books of the petitioners are not the same which were -supplied to them at the Examination Centre: The inner pages of the answer books have been replaced by new ones because.
(i) The answer books have been resewed.
(ii) The colour of the thread used for resewing the answer books is different from original one.
(iii) the size and the shape of embossing machine used on the replaced inner pages is different to that of embossing machine used by the University for the purpose.
(iv) The signature of the Secrecy Officer at the end of the answer books are bogus."
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel. It is clear that the petitioner afforded proper opportunity of hearing in the matter b\ the Disciplinary Committee, which passed the impugned orders against them. The petitioners were served with charge-sheets, to which they replied and refuted the allegations. The point raised on behalf of the petitioners regarding the so-called lack of opportunity of hearing stands concluded by the findings of fact in this case. It is clear that the petitioners having become aware of the accusation against them, therefore, it was not necessary to frame or serve them with any formal charge-sheets nor as laid down in Zakir Ahmad's case (P.L.D. 1965 S.C. 60) ts it necessary to formally examined by witness and if there was any need for examining the witness, it was not essential to examine them in the presence of the petitioners nor any so-called right to cross-examine the witnesses in these proceedings was. Available to them. I am fortified by the judgments reported in P.L.D. 1985 S.C. 90.
11. P.L.D. 1981 S.C. 464, and P.L.D. 1973 Notes 146 which laid down a principle that 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. While the student is being dealt with for mis-conduct. He is not to be treated a tin ordinary criminal nor the authorities are to get into the ropes of the police prosecution agency during the investigation and inquiry, preliminary or final, the attitude of all concerned is, necessarily of adversaries and thus should not become the antagonistic. I am of the view that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no force on the basis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the following judgments: (!) P.L.D. 1965 S.C. 90.
(2) P.L.D. 1981 S.C. 464
(3) 1981 SCM R 364.
(4) 1979 SCM R 549.
(5) P.L.D. 1991 S.C. 469 Since by the ,substitution of the answer books the only beneficiaries are the petitioners, therefore, the contention of the petitioners' counsel that they had no knowledge as the answer books were handed over to the supervisory staff is not correct. I am fortified by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1979 SCM R 549 and P.L.D. 1992 S.C. 324. On merits similar controversies were raised and set at right by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1982 SCM R 1084. Since the respondents have not violated any Rules or Regulations and respondents had no malice against the petitioners, therefore, writ- petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable as is held by the Superior Courts of Pakistan in the following cases':-
(1) 1984 SCM R 433.
12. 12) P.L.D. 1973 S.C. 600.
(3) P.L.D. 1981 Lah. 371.
13. In view of what has been discussed above the writ petition is dismissed in limine.