' The petitioner appeared in the Annual Examination of Matriculation, held in March, 1998. He was declared successful in all the papers except Biology. However, in the Gazette Notification pasted on the College notice board his result was withheld on account of use of unfair means during the examination. The precise allegation against him was that he solved question No,2 of Chemistry paper outside the Examination Hall. The Disciplinary Committee found him guilty and vide order dated 17-8-1998, he was disqualified to appear in two examinations. He filed an appeal and having failed, he filed Writ Petition No,18453 of 1998 which was allowed and the case was remanded. The operative part of the order is as under:-- 8." In the akin-referred circumstances, I am afraid the finding of the Disciplinary Committee is not based on any cogent evidence rather it is based on the solitary statement of the sub-examiner who too is not sure about the charge levelled against the petitioner. Petitioner is out of academic life since March, 1998 as the Board has not issued him result card in the papers in which he has cleared.
9. In view of the above the order dated 17-8-1998 and communicated to the petitioner on 25-8- 1998 are declared to be passed without lawful authority. The same are, therefore, set aside. The case, however, is remanded back to the Disciplinary Committee to decide the matter afresh within a period of thirty days. The Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore is directed to issue the Provisional result card to the petitioner with regard to the remaining papers. This result card of course be subject to the final decision of the Disciplinary Committee. Needless to observe, it would be open to the petitioner to avail all the legal remedies available to him against the final order to be passed by the Disciplinary Committee if the same is adverse to him."
2. A de novo inquiry was held and he was charged as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The Disciplinary Committee found the petitioner involved in unfair means and held as under:-- "In the light of these facts we are convinced that candidates solved numerical question .2 not in the Examination Hall but at the level of Head Examiner at a later stage. He is found guilty under 6.8(ii) and 6.9. Disqualified from passing this examination and from appearing in next two examinations."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the afore-referred order on following grounds:--
(i) that the petitioner was not informed about the correct charge and that even the charge framed is not supported by any evidence on record:
(ii) that statements of both the Examiner and Sub-Examiner were recorded in petitioner's absence; and
(iii) that petitioner was not given fair opportunity to defend himself.
' In support of the submissions made, learned Counsel relied on Faiza Malik v. Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 1992 SC 324); Muhammad Tariq v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Chairman and another (1990 CLC 898); Muhammad ljaz ul Islam v. B.I.S.E. And others (1994 M LD 1235); Hassan Arbab Khan v.
Principal Government College, Lahore and others (1996 CLC 1734); Samar Perveiz v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another (PLD 1971 Supreme Court 838); The University of Dacca through its Vice-Chancellor and another v. Zakir Ahmad (PLD 1965 Supreme Court 90). Vice-Chancellor, University of Punjab and 2 others v. Muhammad Zahur Nasir (1985 SCM R 802) and Abdul Janan v. University of Peshawar through Vice-Chancellor and others (PLD 1996 Supreme Court 709).
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board on the other hand, opposed the petition and submitted that petitioner was served with a charge-sheet and he was given full opportunity of hearing; that the Disciplinary Committee passed a detailed order which reflects conscious application of mind and no exception can be taken to the order passed. He further submitted that this Court sitting in the Constitutional jurisdiction cannot substitute its finding with that of the Board and that the Tribunals of competent jurisdiction are not expected to follow the procedure which is applicable to a Court of plannery jurisdiction. In support of these submissions, learned counsel for the Board relied on Akhtar All v. The University of the Punjab (1979 SCM R 549); Rahat Siddiqui v.
Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another (1977 SCM R 213); Sh.
Muhammad Aman Nomani v. Principal Government College, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1973 Lahore
(Note) 146 at p.221); Muhammad Ahmad v. Controller, Examinations, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan and another (1997 CLC 891) and Shaukat Ali v. The Controller of Examinations University of the Punjab, Lahore and another (1981 SCM R 364).
5. I. Have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the precedent case law.
6. After the remand, petitioner was given hearing on 30-9-1998. He gave written reply the same day and he did not raise any objection qua the manner of recording the evidence or expressed any desire to cross-examine any witness. The Sub-Examiner, has in his statement categorically stated that question No,2 of the Paper in question was solved latter on. In answer to a query, he stated that initially, he sent the award list in which petitioner was awarded 36 marks but in the subsequent award list those were inflated to 46. Added that there was a crossing on the total marks awarded and in column relatable to question No,2 initially there was a red crossing indicating that the question had not been attempted but subsequently 10 marks were awarded for question No,2. He admitted that question No,2 had been answered with a different ink; that this question was not initially answered and that is why petitioner was earlier on awarded 36 marks in total. The afore- referred resume of the material/evidence on record would show that in the award list submitted by Head Examiner to the Board, petitioner secured 36 marks; that at latter stage, those marks were increased to 46 and this was done by awarding marks of question No,2 which initially was not attempted at all.
This finding is substantiated by the fact that on the front of the answer sheet in the column of awards, the initial awards were given in red ink and with red ink the column of question No,2 was crossed and subsequently with green ink 10 marks were added in this column and total marks were inflated from 36 to 46. This was also done with green ink. The Head Examiner also signed with green ink and admits having made addition but his contention is that he did not add it at a latter stage.
But initial list submitted to the Board which is signed by the Head Examiner and Sub Examiner both belies his stand and strengthens the case of the Board. The precedent case law to which reference has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable. In Faiza Malik v. Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 1992 Supreme Court 324), the main consideration which weighed with the Hon'ble Court was that father of the girl candidate had volunteered that his daughter was innocent and that he was responsible for forgery. In these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and allowed her to take benefit of having passed in the other seven subjects. In the instant case, the question No,2 was attempted in petitioner's own handwriting and in his detailed statement made before the Disciplinary Committee, he owned having attempted that question. In Abdul Janan v. University of Peshawar through Vice Chancellor and others (PLD 1996 Supreme Court 709) the Hon'ble Court was persuaded to grant relief firstly because the order passed by the Board was not speaking order and secondly during the pendency of the appeal and flux of time, the candidate continued to attend the classes and he had finally qualified the M.B.,B.S. Examination. None of these considerations are attracted in the present case.
7. For afore-referred reasons, I do not see any merit in this petition which is dismissed.