' Petitioner appeared in Bachelor of Pharmacy Final Examination Second Annual held in March, 1991 under Roll No,467, On declaration of result petitioner was shown to have passed the examination by securing 638 marks. Petitioner also claimed to have applied for and been issued the degree on 15- 7-1991. On or about 2-7-1991 petitioner received a notice dated 30-6-1991 (Copy Annexure 'C') informing the petitioner that "on 13-3-1991 while you were taking examination in Paper V, you slipped away from the centre alongwith your answer book. You made arrangements to cheat in the examination by way of inserting your answer book in the bundle which was ready to despatch to External Examiner, after attempting answers thereon, with connivance of some member of the Secrecy Branch. Moreover, you obtained nine continuation sheets whereas you attached five continuation sheets with your answer book. You smuggled four continuation sheets out of the centre with mala fide intention. This act on your part constitutes misconduct". The petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be disqualified under Regulations 13 and 14, printed on the reverse of the notice. Petitioner appeared before the Disciplinary Committee on 7-7- 1991. The Committee put questions to him and also heard his answers. Vide Annexure 'E' dated 19- 9-1991 the petitioner was informed that the allegations against him, have been found substantiated and the Committee has disqualified the petitioner for a period of 3 years. He was also informed that he will not be eligible to reappear in any University Examination earlier than First Annual Examination of 1993. The punishment was to run concurrently. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Vice-Chancellor, who referred the case for reconsideration to the Committee. The Committee once again heard the petitioner and did not find any good reason to change their earlier decision. The Vice-Chancellor informed the petitioner accordingly. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this Constitutional petition praying that the action taken against him be declared as without lawful authority.
2. Respondent-University has filed report/parawise comments alongwith the necessary documents including reports of the Deputy Controller Secrecy Annexure R-1, opinion of Dr. Muhammad Jamshed, Assistant Professor of Pharmacy Annexure 'R-3' and the record of proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee Annexure 'R-4'. In substance the stance of the University is that the action taken against the petitioner is legal as well as correct on facts.
3. Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate for the petitioner has argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner cannot be said to have been afforded adequate opportunity of defending himself and for showing to the Committee that the material being used against him cannot be used. In particular, he has emphasised that the incriminating material like the opinion of Assistant Professor Annex. 'R-3' and the report of the Secrecy Officer Annexure. 'R-1' was never put to the petitioner nor the petitioner was asked to meet the same and in the absence of such an opportunity reliance of the Committee on this incriminating material is illegal with the result that the decision stands vitiated. He has also pointed out that the Committee has failed to give due weight to the statement of the Centre Superintendent to the effect that he sent all the papers to the University. By relying on The University of Dacca through its Vice-Chancellor and others v. Zakir Ahmed (PLD 1965 SC 90), and Rahat Siddiqui v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another (1977 SCM R 213) (at page 216) learned counsel emphasised that it is the requirement of the principle of natural justice that the incriminating material ought to have been put to he petitioner and his reply obtained. He has also urged that Regulation 13, in the circumstances is not attracted. By relying on the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee it is urged that the relevant incriminating material was considered behind the back of the petitioner as after 7-7-1991 the petitioner never joined the proceedings held by the Disciplinary Committee.
4. Mr. Raza Farooq, Advocate on the other hand has defended the action of the University by relying on number of judgments of the Supreme Court including Ahmad and 3 others v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Engineering & Technology and others (PLD 1981 SC 464), Shaukat Ali v. The Controller of Examinations, University of the Punjab, Lahore and another (1981 SCM R 364), Masood Pervaiz v. The Disciplinary Committee, University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (1982 SCM R 1084), University of the Punjab v. Gulfam Akhtar (1987 SCM R 706) and Ahmad and 3 others v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology and others (PLD 1981 SC 464). On the strength of above cases he has stated that it is not required that the incriminating material ought to have been shown to the petitioner or that he should have been allowed to examine any of the witness. He has maintained that rather than a trial in a Court of law, inquiry by the Disciplinary Committee is in the nature of a home inquiry and the Committee is entitled to rely on University record to come to its finding. He has stressed that in the absence of allegations of malice or dishonesty against the members of the Committee or against any official of the University, the findings so recorded cannot be lightly disturbed.
5. The survey of relevant case-law shows that all that is required by the educational institution in the disciplinary matter is to at least post the affected student with the substance of the allegations and hear him in defence of the same. If he wants to given a reply in writing, the same should be duly received and considered. No charge is framed nor it is required that witnesses should be examined in his presence, nor the student has a right to cross-examine the witnesses (vide PLD 1981 SC 464). Similarly incriminating material could be collected in his absence (1982 SCM R 1084).
This judgment further lays down that the Authority/Disciplinary Committee is the exclusive Judge of the quantum of material for reaching a finding of fact. In Shaukat Ali v. The Controller of Examinations, University of the Punjab, Lahore and another (1981 SCMR 363) it was held that the presumption is that a student has been proceeded against properly and if he alleges malice he has to prove it. In the well-known case of University of Dacca v. Zakir Hussain (PLD 1965 SC 90) it was laid down that this can only be achieved by observing certain formalities which have been designed to assure the minimum essential principles of justice and fairness, by at least telling the person sought to be punished or condemned what are the allegations against him and by giving him a fair opportunity to correct or contradict any relevant statement to his prejudice".
6. Keeping in view the above legal position, I am unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Abid Hasan Minto, Advocate that the petitioner in this case was not given fair -opportunity to defend himself. Petitioner did appear before the Committee on 7-7-1991 and was duly heard. The record of subsequent proceedings is R-4 does not expressly record the presence of the petitioner but as has been held in Masood Pervaiz v. The Disciplinary Committee, University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (1982 SCM R 1084), this was not necessary as the Committee perused the report of the Expert R-3 to make up its mind as to the decision, which was to be taken. R-1 is the report of the Deputy Controller Secrecy, which explains in detail the manner in which the unfair means were adopted by petitioner and another candidate having Roll No,465. During the lengthy hearing Mr. Abid Hasan Minto, Advocate failed to show any good reason why report R-1 be disbelieved or for that matter why the Committee could not or should not have accepted this report. His emphasis was on a technicality that this report ought to have been put to the petitioner specifically and his answer obtained. In the light of the judgment noted above this does not seem to be necessary particularly when at no stage, the allegations of or malice were ever raised against the Deputy Controller Secrecy, not even in this Court. However, even on factual plane, the assertion of the petitioner that he was unaware of the report of Secrecy Office seems to be incorrect. The extract of the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee dated 7- 7-1991, which the petitioner admittedly attended shows that the petitioner was duly confronted with this aspect of the allegations against him and his answer obtained. The extract of proceedings dated 7-7-1991 is reproduced:-- ' "Both the. Candidates appeared before the Committee. They were explained the charges levelled against them and then heard in person.
' The candidates stated that they did not make any arrangements to cheat in the examination by way of inserting their answer-books in the bundle, which was ready for despatch to the External Examiner, with the connivance of any official of the Secrecy Branch. The candidates were told by the Committee that their answer-books were not received in the bundle sent by the Centre Superintendent. In this respect the candidates stated that they attempted questions while sitting in the Examination Hall and deposited their answer-books with the Centre Superintendent themselves. They were also told that their answer-books were received from the Examiner without fictitious Roll No, meaning thereby that their answer books were not despatched to the External Examiner by the Chief Secrecy Officer. The candidates replied that it was not their job, perhaps there might be some mistake on the part of the Chief Secrecy Officer.
' After going through the report of the Chief Secrecy Officer and the statement of the candidates the Committee directed the office to ascertain from the Dean, Faculty of Pharmacy, as to whether the candidates have copied their answers from any book or notes. The Committee also directed the office to call upon the Centre Superintendent for clarification of certain points.
' Till then the consideration of the case was adjourned."
7. It will be seen that in Zakir Hussain's case, there was no notice at all to the student, and it was held that this was not legal while in this case the petitioner appeared on 7-7-1991. In the circumstances, I conclude that the petitioner was duly made aware of all the adverse material and his reply obtained. Principle of natural justice has been satisfied. This contention of the petitioner, therefore, is repelled.
8. As held in Masood Pervaiz v. The Disciplinary Committee, University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (1982 SCM R 1084), the Committee is the exclusive Judge of the quantum of material sufficient to arrive at a finding. It is, therefore, not for this Court to act as Court of Appeal or review and to say that the evidence available is sufficient or not sufficient. In the exercise of power of judicial review this Court can only examine where there is any evidence/material against a candidate and the moment the Court finds that such material is available, the exercise, comes to an end. The Court cannot interfere in such matters merely because it is of the view that the evidence is insufficient or not of a high credibility.
9. Even if the contention that Regualtion 13 is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case be taken as correct, this will not change the outcome of this petition as admittedly Regulation 14 is attracted and the punishment imposed is provided for in Regulation 14.
10. For the reasons aforesaid there is no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.