The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:-- It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the Show-Cause Notice dated 28.1.2003 and notice dated 31.1.2003 issued by Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 may kindly bed declared to be without lawful authority without jurisdiction and mala fide. Consequently the enquiry proceedings may also please be ordered to be conducted by an independent and impartial authority instead of Respondents Nos, 2 and 3. The costs of the petitioner may also kindly be awarded."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents had issued the aforesaid notices to the petitioner mala fide. He further submits that respondents have no lawful authority to issue the impugned notices to the petitioner. He further submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, respondents passed the order of disqualification of the petitioner for one year vide order dated 24.2.2003. He further submits that order dated 24.2.2003 is also not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the order dated 31.1.2003.
3. The learned legal advisor of the respondents submits that respondents passed the order dated 24.2.2003 after completing all the legal formalities. He further submits that the material was recovered from the petitioner which was relevant to the paper in question, therefore, impugned order is in accordance with law.
4. The learned counsel of the petitioner, in rebuttal, submits that the material was not recovered from the petitioner in the examination hall, therefore, that material attached by the respondents with the report and parawise comments has no relevancy and the order has been passed by the respondents malafide.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
6. The impugned order was passed by the respondents after completing all the legal formalities, therefore, same is valid in the eyes of law. It is not necessary for the respondents to call the supervisory staff in the witness box and this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the tribunals below as the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- M. Musaddaq Naseem's case (PLD 1973 Lahore 600) Zakir Ahmad's case (PLD 1965 S.C. 90) Ahmad and 3 others. vs. Vice Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology and another.
It is also settled principle of law that general allegation of malice are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- Saeed Ahmad's case (PLD 1974 S.C. 151) Aman Ullah's case (PLD 1990 S.C. 1092) In view of what has been discussed above, this petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.