1984 PLP 192 (SCMR)

M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the dis missal in limine of his Intra‑Court Appeal by the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court.

2. The petition is late by six days but in view of the explanation furnish ed that it had been filed at the Lahore Registry in time on 14‑6‑1983 but it had been returned and then filed at Rawalpindi Registry on 21‑6‑1983 by which date it had become late by six days, the delay is condoned.

3. The petitioner, who was a medical cadet in the Army Medical College, Rawalpindi, had failed to qualify in the subject of E. N. T. in the Final Professional M. B., B. S. Examination 1981 held by the Quaid‑i‑Azam University, Islamabad. He, therefore, sat in the Supplementary Examination in that subject held in February 1982. Col. M. A. Lone, Professor, K. E. Medical College, Lahore, who was the external Examiner of that paper, while marking the petitioner's answer‑book, felt something wrong with the same, winch he listed as‑-- "(1) Handwriting is different. (2) Ink used is different. (3) Serial number of the additional sheet is different from series in use i. e. 5201‑10222. (4) Signatures of person in Examination hall is different on these con tinuation sheets. (5) These continuation sheets are folded while rest of the answer book is not, folded." He, therefore, reported the matter on 18‑2‑1982 to the Principal of the Army Medical College, Rawalpindi, for thorough investigation. The Dean, Faculty of Medicine of the University, agreed that the matter needed investigation. He accordingly directed that pending decision, the result be withheld. A formal charge‑sheet, dated 17‑3‑1982 was then served on the petitioner in the following words "Charge No. 1 for Final Professional M.B.B.S. (Supplementary) Examination 1981.--‑(i) You appeared in paper entitled, EAR, NOSE and THROAT of Final Professional M.B.,B.S. (Supplementary) Examination, 1981 against Roll Number 4 (Reg1stration No. 2226‑AMC/MBBS‑77) on Saturday, the 13th February, 1982. The External Examiner has reported that you have cheated/adopted unfair means in the said examination by producing; attaching smuggled in Continuation Sheets bearing Serial Nos. 10222, 10237, 10205, 10207, 10208 and 10209 with your Answer Book, bearing No. 8414. It had been verified from the record of the Centre Superintendent and found that these Continuation Sheets were issued during Final Professional M. B., B. S. (Annual) Examination held in October/November, 1981 on 17/19‑10‑1981, and not for the Supplemen tary Examination 1981 held in February, 1982. (ii) It has also been found that you have solved Question No. 1 on the alleged smuggled in Continuation Sheets by virtue of which you have involved yourself in breach of examination rules deliberately with the previous arrangements to cheat in the aforesaid examination. Charge No. 2 for Final Professional M.B.B.S. (Annual) Examination ,1981. You appeared in the Final Professional M.B.,B.S.(Annual) Examination 81 held m October/ November 1981' against Roll ‑No. 28 (Reg1stration No. 2226‑AMC/MBBS‑77). While carrying out scrutiny of the Answer Book/Continuation Sheets used by you in this examination, it has trans pined that you have adopted unfair means in the Examination by smuggling out the Continuation Sheets (Answer Sheets) from the Examination Hall. The same sheets were smuggled in duly solved in the Examination Hall and attached with Answer Book of other papers on the subsequent dates of examination, as detailed in the Annex attached, by virtue of which you have involved yourself in breach of Examination Rules deliberately with previous arrangements to cheat in the aforesaid examination," In his reply, he denied having Adopted any type of unfair means and asserted that the continuation sheets were the same as had been provided to him in the Examination Hall arid that the same could be checked from the number of the continuation sheets issued to the other boys. He also expressed his readiness to appear before the Unfair means Control Com mittee. The Committee after going through the charge‑sheet, the reply fur nished by the petitioner and the record of the Examination produced before it and also after hearing the petitioner who appeared in person before it, came to the view that the guilt of the petitioner had been established and that be bad deliberately previously arranged to cheat in the Supplementary Examination held in February 1982 and the Final Professional Examination held in October/November, 1981 and accordingly decided to cancel his result for the Final M.B.,B‑S as well as Supplementary Examination and' also to dis qualify him for appearing in two more examinations (Annual 1982 and Supplementary 1982). After approval by the Vice‑Chancellor the decision was notified on 28‑6‑1982. 4: By a subsequent letter, dated 1‑8‑1982 the petitioner was further in formed of the decision of the Executive Committee of the Army Medical College of the following additional punishment ; "(1) to be removed from the College rolls, (2) to be discharged from service. (3) to pay the penalty under the ex1sting rules for having created circum stances which necessitated his removal from the college rolls. (4) Migration Certificate‑ will be issued only after the penalty under the existing rules has been paid."

5. Meanwhile, the petitioner had on 17‑7‑1982 filed a representation before the Vice‑Chancellor who after himself examining the whole case re jected the representation on 8‑8‑1982. The Syndicate of the University, on 12‑12‑1982, approved the recommendation of the Unfair means Control Com mittee and confirmed the action of the Vice‑Chancellor.

6. The petitioner challenged the decision of the authorities by filing a Writ Petition but the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 6‑2‑1983, against which he filed the Intra‑Court Appeal which also failed as already stated.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner bad not been given proper opportunity to place his case before the Committee inasmuch as he had received no notice for appearance there but had been taken by the Principal and produced before the Committee on the date of the bearing, that there was no legal evidence to support the decision of the Committee which had neither recorded nor received any evidence that no material forming the basis of the case against the peti tioner had been shown to him nor had his statement been recorded and that the fact of the presence of folds in the continuation sheets or the difference in the handwriting, which had not been included in the charge‑sheet, could not be used against him. In this connection he pointed out that the peti tioner's counsel before the High Court had on inspection 'of the record found that there was neither fold nor difference in handwriting in the con tinuation sheets and that similar numbers had been found on the continuation sheets issued to other examinees which point had been duly brought out in para. 6 of the Intra‑Court Appeal. He also urged that no investigation had taken place by checking from continuation sheets issued to the other examinees to find out the truth of the allegation of smuggling in or out of such sheets.

8. We find no substance in these contentions. It is clear from the reply to the charge‑sheet submitted by the petitioner that he had un derstood the contents of the allegations against him. He had taken no ob jection before the Committee of any lack of opportunity to present his case before it. On the other hand he had owned the alleged continuation sheets but had failed to explain the folds therein or to justify the difference in the signatures of the Deputy Superintendent or the style of writing. This means that the folds, the signatures and the handwriting had been shown to him. It also appears from the impugned judgment that during the inspection of the record by the petitioner's counsel it was found that the record relevant to the unfair means case against the petitioner had been stolen by breaking open the lock of the almirah containing it and that an F. I. R. had been lodged on that account by the Deputy Registrar of the University on 1‑1‑1983.

9. This Court has in University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmed (P L D 1965 S C 90), Controller of Examinations, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v, Muhammad Yaqub (P L D 1977 SC 69) and Ahmad v. University of Engineering & Technology (P L D 1981 S C 464) broadly outlined the requirements of natural justice to lie observed by the authority in dealing with such cases. The authority while it must act in good faith is not bound to treat the matter as if it was a trial or to follow the prac tice of examining or cross‑examining witnesses as in a trial or to construe evidence strictly according to the law of evidence. All it is required to do is to provide the charged, charged, with a fair opportunity to correct or contradict any relevant material prejudicial to him. Judged in the light of these standards; no legal defect is found in arriving at their decision by the University authorities. The petitioner had been duly made aware of the allegations against him and had been given reasonable opportunity of defence. There is also valid basis for the action taken against him

10. The petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. S. Q. Petition dismissed.