TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILANI, J. -- The petitioner appeared in the Intermediate Annual Examination, 1997. Having been issued result card in terms of which, he had passed. However, a rechecking was done. Smelling foul play, an inquiry was initiated and the Disciplinary Committee found that petitioner was guilty of unfair means on account of which his result was cancelled and he was disqualified for three years under rule 6.8 of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore.
2. Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned action and in support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has made following submissions:-
(i) that petitioner was not provided with sufficient opportunity of hearing by the Disciplinary Committee and was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses who appeared against him;
(ii) that petitioner's result could not have been quashed unless he was heard by the Board;
(iii) that the charge of making the use of fake answer-sheets does not fall within the mischief of the rule under which petitioner has been proceeded against;
(iv) that the Chief Secrecy Officer had no authority in law to check all the papers and to initiate the action against the petitioner which led to the passage of the impugned order.
(v) that only the Chairman of the Board could constitute a Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Committee having been constituted by the incompetent authority, any order passed by it has no sanctity in law.
PLD 1970 Lahore 416); Muhammad Ashraf Vs. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore (NLR 1983 CLJ 153); Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Sargodha Vs. Shahid Latif (1990 SCMR 771); Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and others Vs. Abdul Majid (1988 SCMR 329) and Abdul Janan Vs. University of Peshawar through VC and others (PLJ 1996 S.C.
1533).
3. Learned counsel for the respondent Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore on the other hand, defended the order and submitted that the action has been taken strictly in terms of procedure mandated in law; that the final order passed by a Tribunal of competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered within Constitutional jurisdiction; that the petitioner is a beneficiary of the alleged malpractice and cannot be exonerated; that the Board is competent to quash the result; that the period of disqualification having expired, this Court may not proceed any further as it would be an academic exercise alone. Learned counsel for the Board has made reference to the following precedent case-law:- Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and others Vs. Abdul Majid (1988 SCMR 329); Rahat Siddiqui Vs. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore and another (1977 SCMR 213); Mehmood Ahmad Vs. Controller Examinations, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Multan and another (1987 CLC 891); Syed Azmat A.I Vs. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Committee, Lahore and others (PLD 1964 Supreme Court 260); Akhtar A.I Vs. University of Punjab (1979 SCMR 549); Masood Pervaiz Vs. The Disciplinary Committee, University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (1982 SCMR 1084); Ahmad and three others Vs. Vice Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology and another (PLD 1981 Supreme Court 464); Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and others Vs. Muhammad Tariq (1990 SCMR 746); Fuiza Malik Vs. Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 1992 S.C. 324) Rahat Siddiqui Vs. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another (1977 SCMR 213) and Muhammad Nadeem Anwar etc. Vs. Islamia University Bahawalpur etc. (KLR 1999 Civil Cases 65).
4. Heard.
5. The petitioner appeared in the Intermediate Annual Examination, 1997 under Roll No. 4269 on 30.9.1997, the result was announced and resuIt card' was issued in terms of which, he secured 797 marks out of 1100. On 29.10.1997, he applied to the Board for re-checking of his English Paper B. On 29.12.1997, he was issued reply that no mistake was deducted. On 17.1.1998, he again applied for re- checking of his Physics Paper A pursuant to which on 22.1.1998 the Chief Secrecy Officer found that in Physics Paper A the marks obtained by the petitioner inside the answer-sheet did not tally with the awards given in the relevant column on top of the answer-sheet. Smelling foul play, all the remaining papers of the petitioner were re-checked and it was found that Physics Paper A; Chemistry Paper A & B, Urdu Paper II, Biology Paper I & II and Pak Study and Islamiyat the answer- sheets were found to be bogus and had not been printed or issued by the Board. On 29.4.1998, petitioner was issued charge-sheet under rule 6.8 (vii) and 6.15 (viii). The petitioner appeared before the Board on 25.5.1998 and made a statement which is Annexure-R7 with the written reply filed by the Board. He at no stage during the inquiry either raised any objection qua the jurisdiction of the Board or applied for cross-examining any witness. On 13.6.1998, the Disciplinary Committee of the Board passed the final order and disqualified him to appear in the three examinations. He filed appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed on 12.8.1998 and without resorting to the remedy of revision, he has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
6. To examine the vires of the action taken, it is necessary to see rule 6.8 (vii) which reads as under:- "Substituting the whole or a part of an answer book or a continuation sheet by an answer book or a continuation sheet not duly issued to him for the examination."
It is not denied that the answer-sheets with regard to which action was taken were in petitioner's own handwriting and bore his roll number. He is admittedly the beneficiary of the malpractice and cannot absolve himself of being privy to the malpractice. The petitioner being beneficiary of the ill gotten gain was rightly proceeded against and no exception can be taken to it. This is in line with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahat Siddiqui Vs. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore and another (1977 SCMR 213) and Masood Pervaiz Vs. The Disciplinary Committee, University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (1982 SCMR 1084). The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not provided enough opportunity to defend himself is not only belied by record but also reflects a misconception of the nature of the inquiry which led to the impugned order. In cases of unfair means while it is imperative that the accused should be heard but the rigours of the procedure of a criminal Court are not applicable. There is ample material on record to show that petitioner fully knew the charge against him. He was asked to explain the same, he made a detailed statement and the Disciplinary Committee after conscious application of mind, passed a detailed and speaking order. There appears to be no contravention of rule of natural justice. The Reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on a judgment of this Court i.e. PLD 1970 Lahore 416 is not tenable as the said Judgment has been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Judgment- reported in (PLD 1982 Supreme Court 464).
In the entire body of petition, there are no allegations of mala fide against the Chairman of the Board or any Member of the Disciplinary Committee. The term mala fide as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in The Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary Establishment Division, Government of Punjab Rawalpindi Vs. Saeed Ahmad pan and others (PLD 1974 SC 151) is a term of art and has to be alleged with particularity and it should not be vague and general.
7. For afore-referred reasons, the impugned order neither discloses jurisdictional defect nor it is against the law and facts to warrant interference. This petition having no merit is dismissed.