1999SCMR816 (PLP)

WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.

The dispute in this petition pertains to the petitioner's taking the F.E.L. Annual Examination in the year 1992, he having been allocated Roll No.56. The petitioner failed in Paper, III (Islamic Jurisprudence), obtaining 35 out of 100 marks, the required pass percentage being 40 marks. On 5-3-1994 the petitioner applied for rechecking. It was then detected that question No.6 which, ostensibly, had not been attempted in the script, had been managed to be answered in the meantime. This gave rise to registration of a case of unfair means against the petitioner. The petitioner was apprised of the charge per show-cause notice, dated 12-12-1994. In response, the petitioner appeared before the Discipline Committee, on 26-1-1995, also submitting a formal reply to the aforesaid notice. The Committee, upon hearing, found the petitioner guilty of the charge and disqualified him for three years. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal /representation to the Vice -Chancellor but also filed Writ Petition No.7774 of 1995, impugning the disqualification before the Lahore High Court. On 27-9-1995 the matter .was, by consent, sent back to the Disciplinary Committee .for a fuller hearing of the petitioner and due compliance of all the legal requirements. The Disciplinary Committee again took up the issue on 11-4-1996 but maintained its earlier decision. This time the decision was also confirmed by the Vice Chancellor and the petitioner was informed accordingly op 18-8-1996. The revisional affirmation was communicated to the petitioner on 27-11-1997. The petitioner thereupon preferred Writ Petition bearing No.28670 of 1997, which, coming up before the Lahore High Court on 27-5-1998, was also dismissed. Against such dismissal the present leave petition is directed. Before us Dr. A. Basit, the petitioner's learned counsel, has contended that a very material aspect of the matter has been overlooked and that consists of the petitioner having taken the F.E.L. supplementary examination, in the paper of Islamic Jurisprudence alone, had cleared the same and what is more, in course of time has also passed the F.E.L. Second Annual Examination, 1994, held in August, 1995, for which a provisional certificate, dated 25-3-1996 also stands issued to him. Another question raised by the learned counsel is that the Discipline Committee was not duly constituted and that the decision was rendered by only two members thereof when the quorum itself was no less than four: (The calendar of the University of the Punjab, 1990. Vol. 1, Chapter XI Discipline Committee). As to the first contention suffice it to say that even if the petitioner had attained higher qualifications then LL.B. itself such could not be sustained if the basic foundation on which the same rested had been removed underneath We do not know all the detailed circumstances under which the petitioner made appearances in the above cited examinations. We can, however, safely presume that the petitioner could have done above either acting on the quiet and without the knowledge of the University or with the permission of the Court, but subject to the decision of the pending Court matter, if any. In all such circumstances, the outcome would abide with the fate of the enquiry or the Court proceedings, as the case may be. As it transpires, the Court not intervening. the petitioner stands disqualified for a period of three years and any such advancement in education as the petitioner may have acquired is totally and absolutely subject to the disciplinary action recorded in the ordinary course. This argument, therefore, fails. Taking up the second question, pertaining to the constitution of the Disciplinary Committee, we asked the learned counsel whether the point was taken at any previous stage of this long drawn controversy or even in the last constitutional petition on the subject. The answer was in the negative, but the learned counsel added that the question was one of law and could be agitated ever: at this level. In the first place, we are of the view that this is examined question of fact and law and cannot; ordinarily, be allowed to be agitated for the first time at the leave stage to this Court. Besides, equities lie against the petitioner and relief, at the petition stage, being discretionary, we are disinclined to interfere with the High Court order. While dismissing the petition we cannot, however, help overlook, as also pointed out by Dr. A. Basit, that the interpolation in the answer book could not have taken place except with the connivance of the relevant University staff and upon breach of the absolute secrecy with which such matters are attended to. Concerning this aspect alone, we would expect an enquiry to be initiated by the Vice Chancellor of the University of the Punjab and necessary departmental action taken against all those found to be involved. Result would be communicated to the Assistant Registrar of this Court within six months time. With these observations, the petition is dismissed and leave refused. M. B. A./T-9/S Petition dismissed.