1. ' The petitioner an MCS (Computer Science) student has taken exception to the Notification No,109, dated 13-1-1999 and Notification No,887 Acad., dated 29-4-1999, both issued by the Islamia University, Bahawalpur. Through former notification the petitioner has been expelled from the University for a period of 3 years with a fine of Rs,3,000 and through the latter one, his appeal has been dismissed. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that through former notification, dated 13- 1-1999 many other students of Islamia University have also been expelled and fined for different terms of period.
2. ' It is the case of the petitioner that he got recorded F.I.R. No,476 of 1998 at Police Station, Civil Lines, Bahawalpur, on 28-12-1998, under section 324/148/149, P.P.C. To the effect that he alongwith certain student friends met A.D.C. And thereafter, came to the Old Campus Gate at 2.30 noon so as to get bus for onward journey to the New Campus. Hardly they entered the gate when 35/40 persons belonging to Islami Jamiat-e-Tulba having lethal weapons in furtherance of their common object started straight indiscriminating firing. The complainant's side saved their skins by hiding themselves in the streets adjacent to the pond. The miscreants according to the F.I.R. Followed the complainant's guests, namely, Muhammad Arshad and Hafiz Muhammad Aamir by resorting to indiscriminating firing and gave them physical beating with their sticks. The police party according to the F.I.R. Apprehended certain miscreants with pistol and sticks in their hands. The motive according to the complainant was that Islami Jamiyat-e-Tulba, Bahawalpur, secured the presence of 60/70 Goondas from different cities so as to take over the possession of Islamia University, Bahawalpur. The complainant further stated that the miscreant earlier made 2/3 abortive attempts to accomplish their nefarious designs.
3. ' Grievance is made through this Constitutional petition that the respondents issued a show-cause notice vide No,50, dated 6-1-1999, to the petitioner to explain the allegations on 12th January, 1999.
4. The Committee of Indiscipline and Misconduct (CIM), Islamia University, Bahawalpur, comprising four members, namely, Dr. Muhammad Saleem Ahmad, Chairman, Dr. Mujahid Rasool, Dr. Roshan Ara Rao, Assistant Professor and Dr. Makshoof Azhar, Assistant Professor as its members, imposed a penalty of expulsion for a period of 3 years from the University with a fine of Rs, 3,000 vide its Notification No,109, dated 13-1-1999. An appeal was filed which was dismissed vide Notification No,887/Acad, dated 29-4-1999. Hence this Constitutional petition.
5. ' Arguments have been advanced that the impugned action has been taken in a mala fide manner without providing any opportunity as the petitioner had an altercation earlier with the son of the Vice-Chancellor. Neither any charge-sheet was issued nor any evidence was recorded during the course of alleged inquiry, and no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was provided, it is argued. It is further argued that during the pendency of the aforestated F.I.R. Which was got recorded at the initiation of the petitioner, respondents could not have imposed the impugned penalty. Lastly, it is argued that the petitioner has been meted discriminatory treatment as other students have been leniently dealt with while he has been imposed a penalty of expulsion for 3 years with a fine of Rs,3,000. Reliance in this respect has been placed upon Muhammad Zahur Nasir v. Vice-Chancellor, University of the Punjab and 2 others (PLD 1986 Lahore 53) and Vice- Chancellor, University of the Punjab and 2 others v. Muhammad Zahur Nasir (1985 SCMR 802).
6. ' Mr. M.M. Bhatti, learned legal Adviser of the Islamia University, has controverted the stance taken by the petitioner. He has pointed out that the petitioner is an active member of Anjuman Tulba-e- Islamia (ATI). He earlier made complaint to the Director Students Affairs on 13-12-1998 alleging that on the previous night at 10.30 p.m. While he alongwith his friends was going from Farid Gate to New Campus, 8/10 persons of Islami Jamiyt-Tulba forcibly got the bus stopped. Some of them entered the bus having lethal weapons in their hands and hurled abuses upon the students as well as the members of Anjuman Tulba-e-Islam (ATI). Apart from resorting to firing, they also extended threats of dire consequences. They left the place after this untoward incident by raising slogans "Jamiyat Zindabad".
7. ' This application was transmitted by the Director Students Affairs to the C.I.M. Another application was also given by the present petitioner on 29-12-1998 to the Director Students Affairs for the untoward incident perpetrated by students of Islami Jamiyat-e-Tulba on 28-12-1998 at 2.00 noon, details of which are given in the preceding paragraph as the petitioner also got registered F.I.R.
8. No,747 of 1998, for the same occurrence at Police Station, Civil Lines, Bahawalpur. Mr. M.M. Bhatti has stated that the petitioner was issued a notice vide No,1084 on 23-12-1998 respecting his complaint given on 13-12-1998, to explain his position on 30-12-1998, before C.I.M. Similar notices were also issued to the other students. Accordingly, the C.I.M. Met under the Chairmanship of Dr. Muhammad Saleem on 30-12-1998 and heard the viewpoint of the petitioner and nine other students.
9. Subsequently another show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner respecting his second application qua the incident of 28th December, 1998, for 12-1-1999 by C.I.M.
10. ' A detailed hearing was held by C.I.M. On 12-1-1999, as well as on 13-1-1999. ' The petitioner as well as other students to whom show-cause notices were issued w. Re given full opportunity to express their viewpoint. Resultantly, C.I.M. Taking into consideration its deliberations conducted on 30-12- 1998, 12-1-1999 and 13-1-1999 vide Notification No,109, dated 13-1-1999, imposed penalty not only upon the petitioner but also on the other students.
11. ' The petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by the Appellant Committee comprising Dr. Munir Ahmad Akhtar, Dean Faculty of Science and Dr. Muhammad Ashraf, Chairman Department of Economics by providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appellant Committee recommended the dismissal of the appeal by approving the determination of C.I.M. Subsequent, thereto, the impugned notifications, dated 13-1-1999 was issued. Mr. M.M. Bhatti learned counsel during the course of arguments has also made reference to the petitioner's earlier involvement in the case of indiscipline whereby he was expelled from University for a period of 2 years with a fine of Rs,3,000. However, on an appeal, the expulsion period was remitted while the fine was maintained. In support of his contentions learned Legal Adviser has placed reliance upon Ahmad and 3 others v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology and another (PLD 1981 Supreme Court 464), Amer Siddiq Malik v. Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad, and another (1998 SCMR 939), Saeed Nawaz v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore (PLD 1981 Lah. 371) and M. Ismail Qureshi and others v. M. Awais Qasim Secretary General, Islami Jamiat-Tulba, Pakistan and 3 others (1993 SCMR 1781).
12. ' I have considered the contentions and have gone through the documents. It must be stated at the very outset that the deteriorating/worsening atmosphere at the Islamia University Campus has been admitted by both the sides. The petitioner himself got recorded F.I.R. No,746 of 1998, on 28-12- 1998, at Police Station Civil Lines, reference of which is given in the preceding paragraphs that the members of Islami Jamiyat-e-Tulba had made number of abortive attempts to take the possession of the Islamia University, Bahawalpur by use of arms. It is also reflected not only from the respondents' stance but also from the petitioner's own version that he belongs to ATI (Anjuman Tulba-e-Islam). Every time he has made complaint of his group altercation with opposite faction i,e, Islami Jamiyat-eTulba.
13. ' The arguments that neither any charge-sheet was provided nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses is devoid of any force. The precedent relied upon by the petitioner is distinguishable. It relates to the enhancement of marks in the examination by the certain functionaries of the University/Board and the candidate therein was only disqualified on conjectures. The learned Judges rightly interfered therein. The present is the case of indiscipline at the University Campus and has got no relevance with the precedents relied upon by the petitioner.
14. As reflected from the documents, the petitioner and all other were given detailed hearing on 30th December, 1998, 12th January, 1999, and 13-1-1999 by the C.I.M. Comprising Senior Members of Islamia University, Bahawalpur. These incidents have not been denied by the petitioner as he himself has stated in his application before the Appellate Committee while asking for forgiveness that the incidents with Islami Jamiyat-e-Tulba took place because of misunderstanding. He further stated that since the matter had now been compromised as such he be forgiven. The C.I.M., as already stated, thrashed the whole case and gave full opportunity to the petitioner and all concerned to bring their viewpoint. The C.I.M. As reflected from the impugned order took note of illegal activities of the miscreants as they resorted to firing within the University Campus as well as hostels, interfered with the holding of classes by stopping the students from attending the same under threat of dire consequences, broke the window panes and polluted the educational atmosphere at the Campus. The Courts do not function in vacuum. They are bound to take into consideration social and moral environment prevailing in the society. This Court can take judicial notice of the ever deteriorating atmosphere at the Educational Campus. The use of arms and Kalashnikov has become order of the day. The University Authorities in order to check these maladies are not required to follow the strict procedure of trial. It has been held in Saeed Nawaz v.
15. Board of Intermedaite and Secondary Education, Lahore, (PLD 1981 Lah. 371) as under:-- "The Discipline Committee as well as the Appeal Committee constituted domestic tribunals regulated by their own procedure, not expected to follow intricate legal procedure, meant for the conduct of judicial trials. The petitioner was aware of the substance of allegation against him that he created disturbance in the Examination Hall and misbehaved with the supervisory staff. Such behaviour of the candidates in the Examination Hall would prevent and hamper the smooth conduct of examinations and render the supervisory staff helpless. In case no action is taken against the delinquents."
16. ' Further in this case learned Judge went a step ahead and quoted the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in University of Dacca and another v. Zahir Ahmad's case which is in the following terms:-- "Of course the person, body or authority concerned must act in good faith, but it would appear that it is not bound to treat the matter as if it was a trial or to administer oath or examine witnesses in the presence of the person accused or give him facility for cross-examining the witnesses against him or even to serve a formal charge-sheet upon him. Such a person or authority can obtain information in any way it thinks fit, provided it gives a fair opportunity to the person sought to be affected to correct, or Contradict any relevant statement prejudicial to him In other words, in order to act justly and to reach just ends by just means the Courts insist that the person or authority should have adopted the above elementary and essential principles unless the same had been expressly excluded by the enactment empowering him to act."
17. ' This dictum was invariably followed by superior Courts of the country. This Supreme Court of Pakistan in a recent case titled Akhtar Ali v. University of the Punjab 1979 SCMR 549 reaffirmed the principle enunciated in the above cited case. In Ahmad and 3 others v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology and 3 others (PLD 1981 SC 464) the Hon'ble Supreme Court, so as to check the lawlessness at the University Campus, observed as under:-- "But as, held in the case of Sh. Muhammad Awan Nomani, an educational institution is neither required to act as a criminal Court nor is bound to follow the legal or procedural formalities of such a Court. While the student is being dealt with for misconduct or indiscipline, he is not to be treated as an ordinary criminal nor are the authorities to get into the robes of the Police prosecuting agency. During the investigation and inquiries, preliminary or final, the attitude of all concerned is not necessarily of adversaries and thus, should not become antagonistic. In such-like cases during the inquiry involving the student and other concerned persons, the method of questioning, discussion and/or confrontation in a healthy atmosphere, would neither be illegal nor improper procedure."
18. As far as ground of mala fide is concerned, that has been badly alleged in the petition. No allegation of malice or enmity has been alleged against any of the four members of the C.I.M. Or the members of the Appellate Committee. In this regard reference is made to PLD 1974 SC 151 where it was held as under:-- "Mala fides is one of the most difficult things to prove and the onus is entirely upon the person alleging mala fide to establish it, because there is to start with, a presumption of regularity with regard to all official acts, and until that presumption is rebutted, the action cannot be challenged merely upon a vague allegation of mala fides. As has been pointed out by this Court in the case of the Governments of West Pakistan v. Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri PLD 1969 SC 14 mala fides must be placed with particularity and once one kind of mala fides is alleged, no one should be allowed to adduce proof of any other kind of mala fides nor should any enquiry be launched upon merely on the basis of vague and indefinite allegations, nor should the person alleging mala fides be allowed a roving enquiry into the files of the Government for the purposes of fishing out some kind of a case."
19. The other ground that the petitioner has been meted out a discriminatory treatment is neither here nor there. The impugned order of the Committee of Indiscipline and Misconduct (C.I.M.), dated 13-1- 1999, demonstrates that the other students too have also been expelled and fined to different terms. In some case expulsion period is three years as that of the petitioner. The learned Legal Adviser has also informed that their appeals too have been dismissed. In this view of the matter, the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been meted out a discriminatory treatment loses all its force. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.