1. G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.-This leave appeal, which is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 19-10-1977, arises in the following circumstances:-- The appellant appeared in the M. B., B. S. (Final) Examination of 1974, held in July 1975, -only in the subject of Medicine, under Roll No. 464, allotted to him by the Punjab University. However, when the result of the examination was declared on 26-11-1975, his result was, with held with the remarks "L. R.
2. Fee" when according to the learned counsel mean that the result was to be declared only after the due fees had been paid. In a subsequent notification allegedly issued by the Punjab University in December, 1975, the appellant and two other students, named, Muhammad Shabbir Khan and Iqbal Ahmad Shafi were shown to have passed in the subject of Medicine, the appellant having secured 907 marks. The record would show that when a copy of the said notification came to the notice of the Principal, K. E. Medical College Lahore, of which institution the appellant was a student, he wrote a letter to the Controller of Examinations of the University of the Punjab soliciting therein his opinion as to the authenticity of the said notification, as the signatures appearing thereon were found by him not legible. In reply thereto, the Controller of Examinations, vide his letter, dated 15-1- 1976, informed the Principal that the said notification was forged, and further that under the official notification, dated 27-11-1975, the result of the appellant had been withheld, owing to the non- payment of fees. On the receipt of the said letter, the Principal addressed a letter to the appellant on 10-3-197.6 in which he was asked to see him in his office on 20-3-1976. On 20-3-1976, the appellant called on the Principal in his office, who informed him of the issuance of the said forged notification, in which he was shown to have passed' in the subject of Medicine but the appellant expressed his complete ignorance in that behalf. It seems that the Principal felt satisfied with the explanation of the appellant, and consequently wrote to the Controller of Examinations to declare his result. However, when the Controller of Examinations failed to take any decision in the matter, the appellant again approached the Principal in that behalf, who vide his letter, dated 26-6-1976, repeated his request to the Controller, but he showed no interest in the matter.
3. Faced with this situation, the appellant filed in the High Court two-writ petitions, with the details of which, however, we are not concerned, but during the pendency of his second writ petition, he was served with a show-- cause notice by the Controller of Examinations, on 20-12-1976, asking him to show-cause as to why action may not be taken against him for having stage-managed the issuance of the aforesaid notification, in which he was shown to have passed the Final M. B. B. S. Examination held in July 1975. In reply to show cause notice, the appellant submitted two written explanations; one in English dated 24-1-1977, and another in Urdu, dated 1-2-1977. Thereafter the Disciplinary Committee of the respondents heard the appellant in person on two occasions, vie. On 24-1-1977 and 29-1-1977, and adjourned the case to 1-2-1977 for final consideration. When the Committee met on 1-2-1977, it considered the case of the appellant, and by an order of the same date held him guilty under Regulation No. 13, appearing in Chapter VII of the "Conduct of Examinations" of the University of the Punjab, and by way of punishment disqualified him for three years.
4. The appellant challenged the said order of the Committee in a writ petition filed by him in the High Court, but the same was dismissed vide judgment, dated 19-10-1977. Finally, he came to this Court praying for leave to appeal against the said judgment, and by order, dated 2-5-1978, Leave was granted to him, inter alia, on the ground that "in the same situation, it was held by this Court in Samar Parvez v. Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore and another (PLD1971SC8381), that the mere ground of being a direct beneficiary would not be a substitute for proof; therefore, the--- candidate could not be held responsible for the mischief. In Controller of Examinations, University of the Punjab, Lahore v. Muhammad Asif Rana, Civil Petition No. 374 of 1977 the above-cited case was considered and leave was refused on more or less the same factual background.
5. We were informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the candidate has now been declared successful in the examination by the Punjab University. Accordingly, it is a fit case in which leave to appeal should be granted and we order accordingly.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment of the High Court mainly on two grounds; (1) that the aforesaid Regulation No. 13 had no application to the facts of this case; and (2) that it was a case--- of no evidence, inasmuch as there was nothing on the record of the case to show that the appellant was in any manner responsible for the issuance of the forged notification.
7. Now taking up the first contention of the learned counsel, it would be useful to reproduce the aforesaid Regulation 13 which runs as under:-- "13. Any candidate detected in giving or receiving assistance, or found guilty of copying from any paper, book or note, or allowing any other candidate to copy his answer-books, or using or attempting to use these or any other unfair means, shall be disqualified from passing any examination for a period not exceeding three years."
8. The learned counsel contended that since the said Regulation appears in Chapter VII, under the heading "Conduct of Examination", it would only apply in. a case in which a candidate, whilst sitting in the Examination Hall, is detected "in giving or receiving assistance, or found guilty of copying from any paper, book or note, or allowing any other candidate to copy his answer---book, or using or attempting to use these or any other unfair means" He, therefore, argued that the impugned action taken against the appellant by the University Authorities, which had no nexus with his conduct in the Examina--petition Hall, would be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect whatever.
9. We are afraid, there is no force in this contention. It is plain enough, and in which behalf there could hardly be any controversy, that the main object of the Regulation appearing under Chapter VII, is to ensure that a candidate succeeds in the Examination, in which he appears, purely on his owe merit, without resorting to or employing any deleterious contrivances in that behalf. In this respect, a casual look at the Regulations appearing under the said Chapter would suffice to support our conclusion. But non the less it would be useful to refer to Regulations 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 to clarify the position further.
10. Now by reading these Regulations together, the reproduction of which, however, is not necessary, it would be seen that they contain an elaborate machinery with a view to ensuring that a candidate not only does not cheat in the Examination, but also is discouraged in that behalf owing to the elaborate network of surveillance provided in the Examination Hall by a team of invigilators headed by a Superintendent/Deputy Superintendent. Every day before the Examination begins, the Superintendent/Deputy Superintendent is required by the said Regulations to call upon all the candidates to s.-arch their pockets and part with and deliver to him all papers, books or notes, which they may have in their possession, failing which :t candidate shall be liable to expulsion from the Examination Hall. Any impersonation on the part of a candidate is similarly punishable under the Regulations just as the Regulations further provide that if a candidate is found guilty of deliberate previous arrangement to cheat in the Examination. He shall be liable to be proceeded against, and in the event of his being found Quality disqualified from appearing in any Examination for a period of two years. It is in this context that Regulation 13, under which action was taken against the appellant, must be construed. And when so construed the contention urged by the learned counsel has to be rejected. We are clear in our mind that an Examination begins with the first paper of a candidate, and does not end until his result is notified in the prescribed notification issued by the University Authorities, therefore, if a candidate can be expelled from the Examination Hall, for cheating impersonation or for the violation of the Regulations, surely his being a party to the issuance of a forged notification, in which he is shown to have passed the Examination, would be a graver offence, and consequently the University Authorities would be competent to proceed against him and award him the requisite punishment, to case he is found guilty. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the aforesaid Regulation 13 was fully applicable to the facts of this case, and so the contention urged by the learned counsel .Is rejected.
11. "(a) After issuance of notification I took no step at all whatsoever to procure a provisional certificate which goes a long way to establish my ignorance of the issuance of the said notification.
12. As a matter of fact I came to know of it for the first time in the month of March, 1976 when I received a letter from the Principal on the same subject --matter.
13. "(c) This fact may be of great interest for you to know that one of these two candidates, Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Khan is already involved in a forgery case regarding which there is an enquiry pending against him with Punjab University.
(d) The said Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Khan is the cinema owner and possibly shall behaving the means to get involved in these kinds of activities."
14. Now the significant thing which needs to be noted is that in the said passages the appellant tried to establish his innocence to the effect that he came to know of the issuance of the forged notification for the first time in the month of March, 1976, when he received a letter from the Principal; and further that he was not altogether stranger to Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Khan, who according to him was already involved in forgery case, was the owner of a cinema and had the means to get involved in undesirable activities.
15. Now by keeping the said two explanations in juxtaposition with each other, the one significant and material contradiction which hits the eye is that whereas in the first explanation the appellant had asserted to have come to know of the issuance of the forged notification in the month of March, 1976, and that too after he received a letter from the Principal in that behalf, in, the subsequent explanation what he alleged was that he came to know of the said notification on 13-1-1976, when he visited the College. Furthermore, in the second Explanation he graphically pin-pointed all the steps taken by him in an effort to establish his innocence, 'of which fact, however, he had given no indication in his first explanation. It is also on record (see page 22 of the Paper Book) that the appellant had first appeared in the M.B., B. S. Final Ex--amination in 1973 and failed: thereafter he re-appeared in the Supplementary Examination held in 1973, but again failed in the subject of Medicine; and finally, he again appeared in the Supplementary Examination, held in 1974, but his result was withheld, owing to the non-payment of foes, although in the meanwhile, the said forged notification got published on 9-12-1975, in which he was shown to have passed in the subject of Medicine.
16. Now this was the material which was available to the Disciplinary Committee of the respondents, and in which behalf the appellant was questioned on two occasions in order to enable him to clear his position. In the proceedings of the Committee (which appear at page 9 of the official file) made available to us by the respondent University, the appellant was file) questioned as to when he had deposited the balance of the admission fee, he replied that he had done so on 8-3-1976. He was next asked as to why be had failed to deposit the said fees soon after the declaration of the official result, he replied that having learnt about the issuance of the said forged notification he could not do so, as he had become nervous and upset. He was then asked as to when for the first time he had come to know of the issuance of the forged notification, he replied that it was in the month of January, when he paid a visit to his College.
17. On the second day of hearing, to which the case was adjourned, the appellant informed the Committee that he could not properly defend himself, due to nervousness, and consequently sought permission to read out a note which he had jotted down on various pieces of paper, The Committee not only allowed him to do so, but asked him if he would file the said note on the record of the case, in his defence, and be replied that he would do so on 31-1-1977. It seems that in view of said desire expressed by the appellant,' the case was adjourned by the Committee to 29-1-1977.
18. But on that date the appellant failed to file on the record of the case his said note, with the result that the Committee settled down to consider the case of the appellant, found him guilty as aforesaid and took the decision to debar him from appearing in any examination for three years.
19. It would thus be seen that the decision of the Committee cannot be said to be based on no evidence. The Committee had before it the two explana--tions of the appellant, in which he had contradicted himself in material respects, and consequently, the Committee was well within its right to hold that the appellant was involved in the issuance of the above forged notification. Not only this but the Committee also noted the conduct of the appellant first in regard to the fees deposited by him on 8-3-1976, which fees he ought not to have deposited after having come to know about the forged notification, and again when in the breach of his undertaking, given by him on 24-1-1977, to the effect that he would file on the record of the case his typed note, in his defence, on the next date of hearing, i. e. 29-1-1977, he failed to do so. The further circumstance which was present to the mind of the Committee was that on two previous occasions, the appellant had failed in the Final M. B., B. S. Examination, and it cannot be said that the said circumstance, in the context of the case of the appellant, was not relevant.
20. The law in respect of an inquiry in a case of the present nature was laid down by this Court fourteen years ago in the University of Dacca and another v. Zakir Ahmad (PLD 1965SC90) from which the following dictum (appearing at page 104) may be reproduced with advantage: - "the person sought to be affected must at least be made aware of the nature of the allegations against him, he should be given a fair opportunity to make any relevant statement putting forward his own case and "to correct or controvert any relevant statement brought forward to his prejudice". 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 if 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 so act."
21. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed, but under the circumstances the parties would bear their own costs.