The petitioner appeared in Intermediate Annual Examination, 1994 under Roll No,2239. She was issued a certificate showing that she had passed the examination by securing 797/850 marks. On the strength of the certificate, she obtained admission to M.B.,B.S. Course for the Sessions 1994-95 and was allocated one seat in Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad reserved against quota of Pakistan Army. Later on, she was adjusted towards the quota, reserved for under-Developed Area.
As per conditions contained in the prospectus, the admission was provisional and subject to verification of the correctness of the document including the educational certificates.
2. It was in March, 1996 that she was issued a show-cause notice by the respondent Board, through Controller Examination informing her that the records of the Board revealed that in fact she secured 767/850 marks but in connivance with the concerned officials of the Board, she managed to have a certificate issued, showing her to have obtained 797/850 marks. The petitioner was called upon to show as to why her result of the Intermediate Examination be not cancelled and the certificate already issued be withdrawn. It also informed her that earlier a notice, dated 27-2-1996 was issued at her home address which came back with the endorsement that the petitioner had left the house to some unknown place and as such the notice was being issued through the Principal, Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad, Respondent No,3. Copy of the notice is Annexure-G and this was replied to by the petitioner vide Annexure-H by requesting sufficient time so as to enable her to consult her legal advisor and to prepare her suitable reply. She also intimated her correct residential address viz. 1123-B People's Colony-II, Faisalabad and requested that "all future correspondence may please be done at my present address". Annexure-I is another reply of the petitioner, dated 13-4-1996 requesting for more time which also gives the same residential address for future correspondence. Annexure-J is the reminder, dated 21-4-1996 by the Controller to submit the reply on or before 5-5-1996. Annexure-K is another reminder, dated 24-4-1996 for submission of the reply on or before 5-5-1996. This letter further warned that in the event of non-receipt of reply, an ex parte action by cancelling the result will be taken. Annexure-L is the reply, dated 2-5- 1996 to the charge-sheet. Paras. (a), (b) and (c) arc relevant and are reproduced:-- "I have following to submit:--
(a) After appearing in the Intermediate Examination, 1995, the Gazette was consulted at book shop and it revealed that the result was shown as R.D. (result later).
(b) After about another 2/3 months, I received my Sanad through registered letter showing 797 marks obtained.
(c) Allegation of fraud, collaboration and alteration in the marks are absolutely baseless, unfounded and vehemently denied.
3. The petitioner went on to add that she enjoyed brilliant, educational career throughout. In the end she requested that "notice issued to me may please be withdrawn". Annexure-M is the letter from the Board informing her that her reply has been found unsatisfactory and that she should appear on 23-5-1996 at 10-00 a.m. Before the Chairman of the Board. It was indicated that "in case of non-compliance it will be presumed that you are reluctant to appear before the Chairman for personal hearing and in that case the office will take necessary action as per record/your letters received in the office on this subject". Annexure-Q is the letter of the petitioner, dated 22-5-1996 addressed to the Controller of Examination informing him that due to previous engagements it was not possible for her to appear before the Chairman, Board of Secondary Education, Faisalabad on the given date. She requested to give her some date, at the end of next month i,e, last week of June, 1996. In this letter she affirmed her innocence once again. Annexure-N is another letter from the Controller, dated 23-5-1996 stating that in spite of direction to appear before the Chairman on 23- 5-1996 at 10-00 a.m. The petitioner did not attend the office. The letter stated that "You are once again provided the opportunity for the purpose and asked to appear before the Chairman of the Board on 2-6-1996 at 10-00 a.m. In his office at Jail Road, Faisalabad. No T.A./D.A. Will be paid to you for this purpose. In case of non-compliance, it will be presumed that you are not willing for personal hearing and in that case the office will take necessary action against you. This may please be treated as final and last letter on the subject". Annexure-R is another letter from the petitioner, dated 31-5-1996 addressed to the Controller requesting for some more time to collect documentary evidence for clarifying her position. She affirmed her innocent and again requested that "please give me fresh date at the end of June, 1996, as per my previous request to enable me to prepare my case and explain in person".
4. This time the request for further time does not seem to have been allowed. The Board proceeded to decide the controversy in the light of reply of the petitioner and concluded that the allegation that she was able to change her total marks from 767 to 797 was proved. The decision was communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure-P, dated 4-6-1996 in the following terms: "I am directed to inform you that the allegations levelled against you have been proved. It has been confirmed by the record available against you on the file that you got your marks increased from 767 to 797 on the basis of fraud/forgery. Therefore, your result for Roll No,2239 for the Intermediate Annual Examination, 1994 has been quashed and Certificate No,072052 already issued has been cancelled. You are not authorized to use the same and it may be returned to the undersigned."
5. The finding and order of the Board was communicated to the Principal, Punjab Medical Board, Faisalabad, respondent No,3 who proceeded to cancel the admission in the Medical College vide Annexure-S, dated 12-6-1996. The order further stated that the fees and other dues paid by her are forfeited. She is also permanently debarred for admission to any other Medical College in the Punjab Province. Thus, aggrieved the petitioner has challenged the order of the Board and that of the Principal, Annexures-P and S respectively through this Constitutional petition. It is relevant to note that on 24-6-1996 while calling for report this Court suspended the operation of the impugned orders, dated 4-6-1996 and 12-6-1996. It is also relevant to note that on 23-7-1996, parawise comments were filed on behalf of the Board but this Court at the request of the petitioner adjourned the case for filing of rejoinder and for also enabling the learned counsel "to file some application for summoning record from the Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad". Thereafter, this petition somehow remained pending in this Court. C.Ms. Nos. I and 2 of 1999 were filed by the Board for vacation of the stay order. When the case was still not listed, C.M. No,3 of 1999 was again filed by the Board praying for early hearing of the case and if not, for recall of the interim order. At that juncture, this Court directed fixation of the main petition which has now been heard on few dates.
No rejoinder has, however, been filed.
6. The respondent Board has placed on record the report and parawise comments along with the copies of the documents like Award List which shows overwriting and interpolation, the script of Urdu-A showing that the marks have been subsequently added without any initials or signatures of the Examiner, report of the sub-examiner stating that he has examined the record and the marks originally granted by him have been changed from 50 to 80 and that the Award List is not in his handwriting nor bears his signatures, the report of the Head Examiner somewhat to the same effect, the original Award List showing fictitious Roll No,6614 (Original 2239) as having secured 50 marks in Urdu-A, tempered Award List showing the same Roll Number having secured 80 marks, the statement showing how marks was increased against every question and in what manner the total 50 was enhanced to 80, the suspension order of Nazar Hussain, Assistant Inter Branch, suspension order of Muhammad Mushtaq, Junior Clerk, Secrecy Branch and suspension order of Maqsood Ali, Record Lifter Secrecy Branch. The comments are also accompanied by the copies of the -notices and the letters of the petitioner as annexed by the petitioners and which have already been noted.
7. Comments on behalf of respondent No,3 have also been filed in which it is stated that on receipt of the order of the Board cancelling the result, the Principal proceeded under Para. No,19(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Prospectus of the Government Medical Colleges in Punjab to cancel the admission and to debar the petitioner from further medical education.
8. The primary argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been provided adequate opportunity to defend herself and in this connection he has heavily relied on the cases of Vice-Chancellor, University of Punjab and 2 others v. Muhammad Zahur Nasir 1985 SCM R 802, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha v. Shahid Latif 1990 SCM R 771 and well known case of Anisa Rehman 1994 SCM R 2232. He has urged that the petitioner's requests for adjournment ought to have been allowed by the Chairman. It has further been contended that actually the Controller of the Board was biased towards the petitioner and it was he who expeditiously proceeded against the petitioner and concluded the proceedings. By relying on Regulation No,18 of the Calendar, it has been contended that it is only the Chairman who could have cancelled the result but the order in this case has not been shown to have been passed by the Chairman. It is also submitted that by virtue of interim order in this Court the petitioner has been continuing with her studies and has been able to clear two stages of M.B.,B.S. Course and it would not be in the interest of justice to throw her out of education at this juncture. Attention for this purpose is invited to the case of Abdul Janan v. University of Peshawar through Vice-Chancellor and others PLD 1996 SC 709 where in similar circumstances the Court did not interfere against the students.
9. Learned counsel for the Board, on the other hand, has refuted the above submissions and by referring to the numerous notices on the record has urged that it is the petitioner herself who failed to appear before the Board in spite of receipt of notices. He states that the petitioner was designedly delaying proceedings in the Board and was able to carry them over from February, 1996 to June, 1996, on one pretext or the other. According to him the Board gave her sufficient opportunities to appear and present her point of view personally and she cannot make a grouse if she did not avail of the same. He submits that even in her absence the Board considered the records fully, her reply was also considered and on the material available found that her result has been tempered with and that in complicity with the officials of the Board, who themselves were suspended and some of them have been dismissed, was able to procure false and forged certificate showing that she had passed the examination by securing 797 marks instead of 767 marks. He also produced the original file to show that the show-cause notices and the correspondence were issued by and under the direction of the Chairman while the impugned order was also approved and passed by the Chairman. He also argued that even in this Court the petitioner has not rebutted the documents placed on record with the parawise comments.
10. The above detailed resume of facts goes to establish that the petitioner was repeatedly notified to appear and defend herself, that ultimately she did respond by 'affirming receipt of letters of the Controller and her address on which she should be communicated and by filing a reply, dated 2- 5-1996. As the perusal of the reply shows her defence is that of denial and innocence. She was dully informed to appears on 23-5-1996. She did not but claims to have sent a request for adjournment on 22-5-1996. She was notified afresh to appear before the Chairman on 2-6-1996. This time again she claims to have sent a request for adjournment on 31-5-1996. The proceedings were not adjourned and a decision was taken and communicated to the petitioner on 4-6-1996. Her letters of request hardly indicated good ground for adjournment. How can in these circumstances the petitioner make a grievance that she has not been allowed adequate opportunity to defend herself? The Board was under a statutory obligation to notify the petitioner about the charge and to invite a reply and .Thereafter, to give opportunity of personal hearing. The Board discharged this obligation. No valid reason has been given as to why the petitioner failed to appear before the Chairman on 23-5-1996 and on the next date i,e,, 2-6-1996. Even during the course of present hearing, no valid reason was given for nonappearance. The petitioner ought to have realised that she was facing a serious charge and instead of writing letters she should have personally appeared and requested the Chairman for further time. She did not adopt this minimum procedure of law, decency and respect. Instead she chooses to communicate through letters in which no sufficient ground is disclosed for adjournment. In my considered view, the requirement of principles of natural justice has been fully met in this case. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate the plea of non-hearing, are not helpful to the petitioner since in the facts and circumstances of the case, the requirements of principles of natural justice have been complied with.
11. As noted, the reply of the Board is accompanied with each and every relevant document. In spite of obtaining time for filing a rejoinder the petitioner did not do so for over a period of three years.
The documents attached with the reply reasonably establish the case of the Board. The script itself shows that the marks have been added but the additions are neither signed nor initialed by the Examiner. The Sub-Examiner as well as Examiner have given a written statement in the Board that the petitioner was granted only 50 marks in Urdu-A. The original as well as forged Award Lists are also on the record. Suspension orders of the concerned officials are also on the record and these show that it is in connection with the case of the petitioner that those officials were suspended. The dismissal order of Nazir Hussain for committing misconduct in this very case is also on record. The petitioner has not chosen to refute any of the above material. Even in his lengthy submissions spread over quite some days (case was partly heard on number of dates), learned counsel for the petitioner failed to even advert to these incriminating documents muchless repel them. Inference is clear that the petitioner has nothing to say against this material. The falsity of the result (797/850) and of the certificates has been established. No other conclusion is possible.
12. The reference to original file also shows that the proceedings were being conducted under the orders of the Chairman and the ultimate order has also been passed by the Chairman on 3-6-1996 in his own handwriting. The submission that the order has only been passed by the Controller is not borne out and has, therefore, to be rejected. The Controller merely conveyed the order.
13. The above finding and conclusion ate sufficient to dispose of this petition. It has, however, been argued that this Court should interfere in favour of the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner has been studying in the Medical College for the last 2 and 3 years and with success. This submission has been opposed on the ground that such a course will encourage frauds and will have extremely advvse effects in the educational institutions and the society at large.
14. I have carefully considered this submission and I have no hesitation that it has to be rejected. It is well-established principle of law that fraud is destructive of all powers. It is equally well- established that nobody muchless a student can be permitted to reap the benefit of his/her fraud.
The submission in fact means that this Court should ignore the benefit which the petitioner has unquestionably drawn by manoeuvring a certificate showing her marks to be 797 instead of 767, simply on the ground that after admission in the Medical College on the strength of the bogus certificate, she has been doing well in studies. Neither any law nor in equity, relief can be provided to petitioner whose hands are sullied with improper conduct and against whom a finding of privy to and being beneficiary of fraud has not only been recorded by the Board but is C affirmed by this Court, after going through the documents and material placed on record. The judgment in Abdul Janan (supra) proceeds on altogether different facts. In the precedent case the Court concluded that "decision of unfair means committee was not in conformity with Rules of the University, the order passed by the Unfair Means Committee and Appellate Committee did not show application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case". In this I case I am holding that the decision arrived at by the Board is correct and am affirming the same. Such a person can hardly be extended and in fact should not expect any sympathy from any corner muchless from a Court like the High Court whose decisions become precedents and set standards for the society, to follow.
15. The order of the Principal, Medical College, dated 12-6-1996 is based on the order 4-6-1999, which is being upheld as valid. The admission of the petitioner passed on the certificate of the Board was provisional and was liable to he recalled at any time, if it was found that the certificate was false. The action of the Principal, Medical College is backed by the provision of paras. 19(a), (b),
(c) and (d) of the Prospectus of the Government Medical Colleges in Punjab. No exception can, therefore, be taken to this action.
16. For all that has been stated above, there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed with costs.