1. ' The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that petitioner got admission in the subject of Textile Designing in respondent College for the Session 1997-98. An incident of sexual harassment was committed by the 1st Year student at College hostel on the night of 8-2-1999 in which one outsider Umran was fell down from the 1st storey of the College while he was naked and he was provided first aid treatment by the final year student of the said hostel. The matter was reported by the Warden boys hostel N.C.A. To the Principal respondent. No,1 to take disciplinary action against the student. The respondents passed the expulsion order of the petitioner on 17-3-1999. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No,1839 of 2000 which was disposed of vide order, dated 30-3-2000 and copy of same was sent to respondent No,1 Principal who was directed to look into the matter in parental jurisdiction to save the career of the petitioner within reasonable time. In obedience of the direction of this Court, the petitioner filed representation before respondent No, 1 on 5-4-2000. Respondent No,1 failed to reconsider the case of petitioner as directed by this Court.
2. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed this writ petition.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Umran Abbas son of Nadeem Abbas appeared before the learned Area Magistrate and got recorded statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Wherein he had clearly exonerated the petitioner with respect to the incident, dated 8-2-1999, that respondent No,1 took action against five students and those were sentenced with one year restication from the institution and after the expiry of that period these students have been taken back by the College but the respondents had passed the expulsion order of petitioner and did not allow him to enter in the premises; that action of the respondent is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution that cut of 5 students four students had given affidavit in favour of the petitioner wherein stated that the petitioner was innocent in the whole occurrence. The petitioner submitted another application before respondent on 30-9-2000 but he did not pass any order on his application; that action of respondent is also hit by principle of natural justice; that action of respondents is in violation of mandatory provisions of National College of Arts Ordinance, 1985; that respondent No,1 had no authority to constitute Committee under the provisions of the aforesaid Ordinance. The following Committee was constituted by the competent Authority under section 13 of the aforesaid Ordinance: ' The Executive Committee; Academic Committee; Selection Committee; ' Financial and Planning Committee and such other Committee as may be constituted by the Board, that in the present case the respondent No,1 had constituted the Committee which was not valid under the law; that action of the respondents is in violation of College Rules and Regulations; that respondent did not proceed in the matter in terms of Rules 1.15 and 1.16 of the College Rules. He summed up his arguments that petitioner is innocent and is penalized without any justification.
4. ' The learned counsel for the respondents submits that section 13 of the Ordinance is not applicable in case of the petitioner. The action was taken by the respondents competently under the Rules framed by the competent Authority regarding student of the college; that all the inquiry proceedings were conducted fairly and justly and the petitioner was associated and was given ample opportunity to produce his defence regarding the said incident. The impugned action was taken against the petitioner after taking into consideration all the evidence, defence evidence and the Disciplinary Committee/Student Affair Committee; that under the direction of this Court, the respondents submitted the case of the petitioner to the Board of Governor who in its meeting held on 28-6-2000 took up the matter and upheld the earlier decision but ensured that petitioner's in appropriate action/behaviour will not be communicated to other institutions where he may be seeking admission; that Board of Director considered the case of petitioner in a parental jurisdiction but on account of the involvement of the petitioner in the incident did not accept the request of petitioner and upheld the earlier decision.
5. ' I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is admitted fact that matter was placed before the Board of Governor of the College under the direction of this Court in the meeting held on 28-6-2000. The Board of Director examined the case and upheld the earlier decision in the following terms:-- "After due deliberation and in deference to the instruction of the Honourable High Court and being fully conscious that students while at College were under Parental jurisdiction, the Board resolved.
(1) That the College was entrusted with the task of ensuring discipline in the College and dealing firmly with any aberration of behaviour particularly when such acts are against injunctions of an Islamic Society.
(2) To uphold the decision of the Students Affair Disciplinary Committee regarding the expulsion of Mr. Rashid Ali.
(3) That since the intention of the Board was to maintain discipline within the college it would ensure that Mr. Rashid AIi's inappropriate actions/behaviour are not communicated to other institutions where he may be seeking admission.
6. ' It is admitted fact that criminal case was not got registered by the College authorities against any student. In this view of the matter the statement of Umram Abbas before the Area Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. Has no relevancy to decide the present controversy. The affidavit attached with the writ petition of other student had also no relevancy to resolve the present controversy that they appeared before the Inquiry Committee of the college and narrated the incident. The case of the petitioner qua the other student is different as the petitioner is found to be major culprit according to the findings of the Committee. It is also admitted fact that petitioner did not allege any malice against the respondents or Principal and the Board of Governor. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is not maintainable as is held in Saeed Nawaz's case PLD 1981 SC 371.
7. It is settled principle of law that general allegation of malice is not sustainable in the eyes of law as is held in Saeed Ahmad Khan's case 1974 SCM R 154. Section 13 of the Ordinance has no relevancy and the competent Authority has framed the rules and regulations with regard to conduct of candidate as is evident from sections 14 and 16. The petitioner's counsel failed to point out any rules and regulations of the respondents which were violated in case of petitioner, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as the law laid down by this Court by the Division Bench in Mussadq's case PLD 1973 Lah. 600 and the same was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ali Mir's case 1984 SCM R 433 and the law declared in Zakir Ahmed's case PLD 1965 SC 90 did not require any formal notice to be served on the petitioner. It was enough if he became aware of the proceedings which were to be conducted by the Disciplinary Committee. It was not necessary to frame or serve him with any formal charge nor as laid down in that case, it was necessary to formally examine any witness and if there was any need for examining the witnesses it was not essential to examine them in the presence of the petitioner nor any so-called right to cross-examine the witnesses in these proceedings was available to the petitioner as the law laid down in Ahmed's case PLD 1981 SC
464. This proposition of law has been finally decided by this Court in Hassan Arbab Khan's case 1996 CLC 1734 after considering all the case-law on the subject and held that writ petition is not maintainable. Keeping in view the circumstances of this case I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner as per law laid down in Nawabzada Ronaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236.
8. ' In view of what has been discussed above there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.