' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitoner-student of Bachelor of Pharmacy appeared in Second Annual Examination in March, 1991. He was declared to have passed the examination with 638 marks.
According to him Bachelors' degree was conferred on him on or about 15-7-1991 but in the meanwhile on 2-7-1991, he received a notice dated 30-6-1991 on the premise that on 13-3-1991 while he was taking examination in Paper-V, he slipped away from the centre alongwith his answer book. He was accused of having arranged to cheat in the examination by way of inserting his answer book in the bundle ready for dispatch to the External Examiner, after having attempted the answers thereon, with the connivance of some member of the Secrecy Branch. He was also charged for having obtained nine continuation sheets but attached only five sheets with his answer book out of centre with mala fide intention. According to the Punjab University Authorities, this act on his part constituted misconduct. He was, therefore, called upon to show cause as to why he should not be disqualified under Regulations 13 and 14 of the University Calendar, Volume-I for the year 1977-78. After hearing in person by the Disciplinary Committee, he was informed that he would not be eligible to re-appear in any University Examination earlier than 1st Annual Examination of 1993. Both the punishments were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Vice-Chancellor, who referred his case for reconsideration to the Disciplinary Committee. The Committee, upon hearing the petitioner, did not find any good reason to review the earlier decision and the petitioner was informed by the Vice- Chancellor accordingly. He then filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court impugning the vires of the letters dated 19-9-1991 and .5-2-1992 issued by the Disciplinary Committee and the Vice-Chancellor respectively, as having been issued without lawful authority.
3. Respondent University submitted parwarise comments alongwith reports of the Deputy Controller Secrecy Annexure R-1, opinion of Dr. Muhammad Jamshed, Assistant Professor of Pharmacy Annexure R-3 and record of proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee Annexure R-4. In nutshell stance of the University appears to be that action taken against the petitioner is lawful and correct on facts. Upon hearing, in the ultimate analysis, learned Judge in Chambers in the Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. We having heard Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, whose main thrust of argument has been that the petitioner was not provided a reasonable and fair opportunity of showing cause against the belated and afterthought show-cause notice and that respondents committed flagrant violation of law by acting unfairly and unreasonably as the petitioner was not confronted with the so-called proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee and the report of the Assistant Professor Pharmacy treated as expert opinion as well as the report of the Secrecy Branch of the University. Learned counsel forcefully submitted that out of six papers, the petitioner had qualified in the five papers in 1st Division. His academic record was brilliant and outstanding throughout; that there was no material on record to substantiate that he had copied his answers from any textbook and that the report submitted by Dr. Muhammad Jamshed, treated as expert opinion, was neither conclusive nor sacrosanct. Learned counsel vehemently urged that Superintendent of the centre did not agree with the views of the Disciplinary Committee, inasmuch as, he had sent 41 scripts to the Secrecy Branch and there was no occasion to smuggle out answer book and continuation sheets or stuffing the bundle with the answer book of the petitioner, as alleged. Learned counsel relied upon University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmed (PLD 1965 SC 90), Sumar Pervaiz v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (PLD 1971 SC 838) and Vice-Chancellor, University of Punjab v. Muhammad Zahur Nasir (1985 SCM R 802).
5. We do not feel persuaded to subscribe to the submissions of the learned counsel as the Disciplinary Committee or the Internal Tribunal of a University is neither a judicial forum nor a quasi-judicial authority. For all practical purposes, such Committees and Tribunals are purely administrative in nature and proceedings conducted by them are in the nature of a summary inquiry, in order to satisfy the authorities whether a candidate has been guilty of practising unfair means or misconduct. The procedure adopted in disciplinary proceedings against the Government servants or the manner of recording evidence in a Court of law has never been recognised as applicable to the domestic Tribunals in an educational institution of human excellence. In the opinion of the Disciplinary Committee, we find there was adequate incriminating material to warrant a finding that the petitioner had been guilty of unfair means; that he disappeared from the Examination Hall alongwith his answer book and continuation sheets; had written his answers thereon outside the Examination Hall and managed to insert his answer book in the bundle of scripts ready for dispatch to the External Examiner Indeed the modus operandi in such cases appears to be that a candidate would not be able to carry on such malpractices unless there be tacit connivance or approval by officials of the University at the Examination Centre and/or in the Secrecy Branch. Submission of the learned counsel that the Superintendent of the Examination Centre did not support the views of the Disciplinary Committee may be correct but this would be so obviously for the reason that had he supported the proceedings of the Committee, he would equally be held responsible for contributory negligence, neglect of duty and connivance with the petitioner.
6. Perusal of the parawise comments by the respondents would tend to indicate that it was reported to the Chief Secrecy Officer that 39 answer books of the examination were dispatched to the External Examiner whereas 41 answer books were received back in the University with the report of External Examiner stating that he had found two answer books without fictitious- roll numbers in the bundle. These answer books belonged to the petitioner and another candidate namely Ahmad Raza, The report was processed and, with the permission of the Controller of Examinations, a case of unfair means was registered against the petitioner and others similarly involved. After the service of the charge-sheet on the petitioner on 2-7-1991, his script was sent to Dean, Faculty of Pharmacy whereupon opinion was received from Dr. Muhammad Jamshed, Assistant Professor of Pharmacy that, prima facie, it was a case of employment- of unfair means by the candidate.
7. We notice from the record that it was the petitioner himself on whose request the proceedings were held on 7-7-1991. It was the opinion of the petitioner to submit a written reply but he did not choose to file a reply in writing and pleaded his defence orally. Petitioner was not only heard by Disciplinary Committee comprising of two Ph.D. Professors of Institute of Engineering and Chemical Technology as well as Department of Philoscphy in addition to respondent No,2, as Secretary to the Committee, fair opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. He was also confronted with the entire incriminating material on the basis of which he had been charged. After examining the opinion of the Assistant Professor of Pharmacy and report of the Centre Superintendent, the Committee concluded that the petitioner had committed offence under Regulations -13 and 14 of the University Calendar. Accordingly he was held guilty and disqualified for three years. Petitioner alleged in the memo. Of writ petition that he had requested the Committee to examine the Centre Superintendent in his presence but the parawise comments filed under the signature of Sheikh Wali Muhammad, Deputy Controller (Secrecy) and Secretary to the Disciplinary Committee unequivocally state that no such request was made by petitioner before the Committee. This statement was not controverted. Indeed, there being no requirement of law requiring the examination of the witnesses in presence of the petitioner for inquiries held by the Committee being domestic in nature and in exercise of parental jurisdiction of the University.
8. We have given our anxious thought to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and gone through the incriminating record against him with utmost care and caution. In our considered view, the petitioner was neither denied a fair opportunity of showing cause against proposed action nor did the authorities act arbitrarily or in violation of the principles of natural justice. All possible endeavours were made to convince the conscience of the petitioner that unfair means were adopted by him in the Vth Paper at the annual examination, which did not warrant any leniency.
9. In University of Decca (supra) it was observed that the requirement of natural justice would depend on the circumstances of the case, nature of the inquiry, rules under which the Tribunal was acting, subject-matter that was being dealt with and so forth. Nevertheless, the general consensus of judicial opinion seems to be that, in order to ensure the elementary and essential principles of fairness, the person ought to be affected must at least be made aware of the nature of the allegations against him, who should be given a fair opportunity to make any relevant statement putting forward his C own case and "to correct or controvert any relevant statement brought forward to his prejudice". It was observed that it was not possible to lay down with exactitude what these principles of natural justice were inasmuch as they have been differently defined in various cases. Aforesaid principle was followed in Sumar Pervaiz (supra) but the facts of the latter case being r totally distinguishable and the petitioner could hardly benefit from the dictum laid down in the judgment. In the last case i.e, Vice-Chancellor, University of Punjab (supra) both the earlier cases were referred to and it was reiterated that no hard and fast rule can be laid down for general application to all cases. Notwithstanding the overriding consideration requiring the maintenance of discipline in educational institutions, the Tribunals functioning in such institutions cannot be freed from the necessity of acting in a manner, which excludes reasonable possibility of unfair action being taken. It was clarified that the University Authorities are not required in the disciplinary proceedings to strictly follow the technical rules of evidence enjoined by the Evidence Act notwithstanding that the disciplinary forums functioning in the educational institutions are not tied down to procedural requirement of a trial in a judicial or quasi-judicial forum like administrating oath or examine the witnesses in the presence of the accused person or giving him facility of cross-examining the witnesses. The decision of such forums is nevertheless not sacrosanct if it is unfair or arbitrary.
10. Judged in the light of the settled principles of law laid down by this Court and the parameters fixed for evaluation of material against, the petitioner in examination, it is difficult to subscribe to the view of the learned counsel that the principles of natural justice in the case in hand were not fully adhered to. On the contrary, we notice that the authorities have taken utmost care to ensure that no miscarriage of justice is occasioned and maximum possible opportunity of defence is afforded to the petitioner which in fact was duly availed of. In the face of overwhelming incriminating material available with the University, we do not think that the petitioner was condemned unheard in violation of maxim audi alteram partem. We are, therefore, of the firm view that indeed the petitioner has failed to make out a strong case for the grant of leave in this petition.
11. Adverting to the factual aspects, petitioner was disqualified for three years, which period expired in 1993, we called upon the learned counsel to state at the Bar whether the petitioner appeared in the examination in subsequent years. He was unable to make any statement as the petitioner perhaps has lost his contact with the learned counsel, after having instructed him to file the petition, in April, 1999. In all probability, petitioner is no longer interested in the prosecution of his academic career in the field of pharmacy otherwise, he would not have been indifferent, inactive and remained out of touch with his counsel.
12. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, we hold that no substantial question of law of general public importance has been raised, thus, the petition must fail and is hereby dismissed.