' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Leave to appeal is claimed against judgment dated 29-9-1999 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi whereby Writ Petition No.2016 of 1999, filed by respondents-Sehr Azmat and Kirn Azmat, was allowed and an unfair means case against them was set aside by holding that the order of the petitioner-Board of Intermediate and Secondary Edcuation Rawalpindi, hereinafter referred to as the Board,"...
Debarring the petitioner-students from appearing in the 4-consecutive examinations of the respondent-Board is set aside and the respondent-Board is directed to declare forthwith the result of the petitioners-students so that they can approach a college of their choice for seeking admission in the first year class as 30th of September, 1999 is the last date for the purpose. The respondent-Board is further directed to hand over the result cards to the petitioners-students on their approaching the Board for the purpose without any loss of time".
2. According to the Board, one Mr. Abdul Zahoor, a Library Clerk of Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Choa Saiden Shah, lodged a complaint with them that the respondents, who were taking the Annual Matriculation Examination of 1999 under Roll No.130666 and 172609, are the daughters of the.Principal, Girls Higher Secondary School. The said examinees have got their papers solved through him (Abdul Zahoor) and one Muhammad Aslam. Further both of whom are B.Sc., B.Ed. They provided copying material to the respondents from outside and, in support of the assertion, paper of chemistry of Roll No.130666 was specifically referred to. After receiving another application addressed to the Chairman, with copies to Chief Minister etc., the matter was placed before the Disciplinary Committee of the Board. Complainant-Abdul Zahoor was summoned through as many as five notices between 22-7-1999 and 25-9-1999 but he did not cooperate with the Committee. During the pendency of the matter before the Disciplinary Committee the respondents filed this Constitution petition in the High Court on 21-9-1999. The High Court summoned some responsible officer of the Board along with the record for 24-9-1999. The Superintendent of the Board appeared on this date and complainant-Abdul Zahoor was also summoned for 27-9-1999. The matter was adjourned to 28th and 29th of September, 1999 and the impugned judgment was passed on 29-9-1999.
3. It appears that the learned Judge in Chambers directed the Board to finalize the enquiry into the aforesaid question of use of unfair means by 11-00 a.m. On 29-9-1999. The matter was taken up as above and the Superintendent of the Board produced a decision of the Committee whereby the respondents had been found guilty of using unfair means and debarred from appearing in the four consecutive examinations. The (sic) before the learned Judge in Chambers was that the proceedings taken 'by the Board" were ulteriorly motivated and actuated by bad faith inasmuch as the result according to the showing of the Board was withheld on the basis of a letter written to it by Abdul Zahoor and when he came before this Court and denied the allegations of using unfair means and of attempting the papers on behalf of the petitioners-students the Board fell back upon the plea that although the alleged writer of the letter has denied the allegation yet perusal of the papers placed before it attempted by the petitioners-students had convinced the Members of the Committee that they were guilty of using unfair means. No such material has been placed before this Court for its perusal so as to sustain the orders of debarring the students from appearing in the 4-consecutive examinations".
4. Mr. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of this petition, has referred to Ahmad and 3 others v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology and another (PLD 1981 SC 464) and Zafarullah v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore etc. (PLD 1981 Lahore 244) to contend that the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee could not be equated with proceedings before a Court/ Tribunal and that the Board had provided ample opportunity to the respondents before debarring them from appearing in 4-consecutive examinations. According to him, an appeal is competent before the appropriate Appellate Committee and without availing of the said remedy, the respondents could ill-afford to resort to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The direction by the High Court to the Board for declaring the result of the respondents by 30th of September, 1999 was gone ahead without even so much as calling for comments and/or admitting the writ petition to regular hearing. Even a written statement was not received from the Board. He has also taken us through a couple of sheets of papers in Part-II of the Paper Book to contend that the Board had the material in its possession to go ahead with making the order debarring the respondents from appearing in 4-consecutive examinations.
5. We have considered the arguments addressed at the Bar. There is no cavil with the proposition that the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee cannot be equated with proceedings before a Court/ Tribunal requiring examination and cross-examination of witnesses and where strict adherence to the Law of Evidence is insisted upon. However, it does not mean that the Board is possessed of the power or authority to take any action against persons similarly placed as the respondents without affording an opportunity to defend them. Put differently, the Board cannot afford to take any action against the respondents without complying with the principles of natural justice. The observations made by the learned Judge in Chambers in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned judgment, do make a case in favour of the respondents to the effect that neither they were provided an opportunity of hearing before being debarred from 4-consecutive examinations nor there was any material available with the Committee to make such an order. It is not even so much as alleged by the learned counsel on behalf of the Board that the complainant- Abdul Zahoor stuck to his position of being a genuine complainant/ informer regarding the use of unfair means by the respondents. Similarly, the Disciplinary Committee did not even offer the respondents to make a statement in defence of the allegations levelled against them by the Board.
The learned Judge in Chambers was quite right in observing that there was violation of the principles of natural justice in this case.
6. We find that the learned Judge in Chambers thoroughly examined the case in hand to reach the conclusions that: (1) the respondents have been condemned unheard inasmuch as neither their statements were recorded by the Enquiry Committee nor they were confronted with the material on the basis of which the Members of the Committee came to the conclusion that they were guilty of use of unfair means, (2) the Enquiry Committee did not record the statement of any witness in support of the allegations as to the use of unfair means by the respondents, (3) Abdul Zahoor- complainant appeared and totally denied the allegations as to the attempting of papers of the petitioners-students or of having written a letter to this effect to the respondent-Board, (4) the respondent-Board did not even allege that it was in possession of any piece of evidence in support of the allegations as to the use of unfair means by the respondents "..Except the alleged letter written by the Clerk of the School Abdul Zahoor to the effect that he had attempted their papers.
But this only witness regarding the use of unfair means, as aforesaid denied the allegations in their entirety", (5) the allegations of the respondents that Professor Iftikhar, one of the members of the Disciplinary Committee, had animus against them as he wanted his wife to be appointed as Headmistress in place of the respondents' mother. This allegation was put to the Superintendent of the petitioner-Board but was not controverted by him, (6) the Assistant Commissioner, Choa Saiden Shah was present in the Examination Hall to ensure see-through examination as "directed by the Provincial Chief Minister and in the absence of any denial on the part of the Board that he remained present throughout the day, the alleged use of unfair means is liable to fall to the ground, (6-A) same is the position with regard to the stand taken by the Deputy Superintendent of the Examination whose pleading to the contrary was not accepted by the Members of the Enquiry Committee for no earthly reason whatsoever, (7) when the Superintendent of the Board was asked as to why the statements of the respondents were not recorded, he stated before the learned Judge in Chambers that "... the Members of the Committee were of the view that even if the statements of the petitioners-students were recorded, they would deny the allegations against them and as such, it was not thought necessary to record their statements and to give them an opportunity of explaining their position vis-a-vis the allegations of use of unfair means. I am constrained to observe that the reasoning advanced for non-recording of the statements of the petitioners-students to enable them to explain their position vis-a-vis the allegations against them is devoid of any merit whatsoever", and (8) the petitioner-Board did not produce the material before the learned Judge in Chambers on the basis of which the orders debarring the petitioners - students from appearing in the four consecutive examinations of the respondent-Board was passed.
7. Looked at from whatever angle, no ground for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 29-9-1999 of the High Court has been made out. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed and leave refused.