' With the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties this case is being treated as Pacca case.
2. Before opening the arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition by contending that a review ,petition is available to the petitioner against the impugned order under Regulation 21 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of examinations of the University.
3. Replying to this argument, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under Regulation 13 of the above Regulations if a candidate is found guilty of unfair means, a review is available under Regulation 21 but, however, if the allegations against a candidate are relating to the matters enumerated in Regulation 18, the review is not competent.
4. I have gone through the relevant Regulations. Apparently, the very first line of the Regulation 21 provides that the review is available in the cases of use of unfair means, which is covered under Regulation 13, therefore, if an allegation against a candidate is covered under Regulation 18, a review would not be competent. Therefore, preliminary objection raised by the beamed counsel for the respondents is overruled.
5. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner appeared in 1st Annual Examination, 2002, for B.Sc.
Examination under Roll No,23211. He was taking paper for General Math. On 11-7-2002 at Government College of Education, Multan (Centre No,11). Immediately after the start of the paper, there was a strike and walkout by the students on the ground that the paper was out of course. On 25-7-2002, a charge-sheet/show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner that he had been an active participant of said strike and walkout. He submitted his reply and ultimately vide notice dated 8-8-2002, he was called upon for personal hearing on 24-8-2000. After hearing the petitioner, the Disciplinary Committee held the petitioner responsible for all the allegations levelled against him and disqualified him from passing 1st Annual Examination, 2002 and from appearing in any University Examination in 2nd Annual, 2002, the same is being assailed through the instant writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the copy of the impugned order, dated 24-8- 2002, was not provided to the petitioner, only an intimation was conveyed to him vide letter, dated 2-9-2002, therefore, he not only impugns the said letter dated 2-9-2002, but also challenges the order, dated 24-8-2002, which has been placed on record by the respondent as Annexure "R.V."
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no evidence was recorded by the respondents of any witness i.e, the Centre Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent and Invigilating Staff on the report of whom the reliance was placed by the Disciplinary Committee and the petitioner along with others was found guilty, whereas, the petitioner had made his statement on oath before the Committee. Therefore, the petitioner had no occasion to cross-examine or challenge the persons who had involved him or an identified him according to the said report of the Centre Superintendent. It is further submitted that the Committee has passed its findings only on the basis of report submitted by the Centre Superintendent, which was not sufficient for the conviction awarded to the petitioner.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents contends that there was no motive mala fide or bias with the Centre Superintendent or the other staff of the Centre to falsely implicate the petitioner in the case. They even did not know the petitioner personally, therefore, no malice can be attributed to them. In the circumstances, in the absence of any malice or mala fide said report was sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty.
9. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
10. It is true that apparently at this stage no malice or mala fide has been alleged by the petitioner against the Centre Staff nor the same is available on the record. But still to award punishment/conviction to somebody the authority/Tribunal is required to collect some evidence and particularly in the instant case, the evidence was available with the Committee in the shape of Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent and Invigilating Staff. They could have been summoned in the presence of the petitioner to depose against him and also to identify him before the Committee that he was responsible for the acts alleged and after recording their statement, any finding called for in the circumstances of the case could have been recorded. In the absence of this exercise, I am afraid, the impugned order cannot be sustained, the same is accordingly declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. The case shall be deemed to be pending with the Disciplinary Committee, who may proceed in accordance with law.
11. Since the impugned order has been set aside by this Court and the matter is still pending with the Disciplinary Committee, therefore, the respondents shall announce the result of the petitioner, which shall, of course, be subject to the final outcome of the findings of the Disciplinary Committee.
12. For what has been stated above, this petition stands disposed of in the terms stated above.