1997 PLP 2588 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑Chap. VI, R. 8‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Intermediate Second Annual Examination‑‑‑Disqualification of petitioner for four examinations‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Charge of copying could not be established against petitioner through inquiry conducted by Disciplinary Committee and she was thus, exonerated‑‑‑Appellate Committee did not interfere with the order of Disciplinary Committee ‑‑‑Jaiza Committee, however, disqualified petitioner for four examinations‑‑‑Perusal of record showed that there was no material to implicate petitioner except her inclupatory statement in a slip‑shod manner‑‑‑Court itself examined copies of two candidates and there was nothing to suggest that any answer of one candidate was copied from any answer of the other candidate‑‑‑Disciplinary Committee and Appellate Committee had probed the matter thoroughly and had exonerated petitioner of the charge‑‑‑Centre Superintendent also did not advance case of the Board‑‑‑Taiza Committee without appraising record had passed its order in slipshod manner simply taking into consideration forced alleged statement of petitioner‑‑‑Order of Jaiza Committee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education having been passed without lawful authority and being of no legal effect was set aside in circumstances‑‑‑Board (respondent) was directed to declare result of petitioner without waste of time. Javed Hotel (Pvt.) Ltd. v. C.D.A., Islamabad PLD 1994 Lah. 315; Muhammad Shahzad v. Principal, Nishtar Medical College, Multan and others 1994 CLC 565 and Syed Qaiser Sajjad Sherazi v. B.I.S.E. 1991 CLC 726 ref. Raja Abdur Rehman for Petitioner. Muhammad Hussain Chatha and Muhammad Arif, Superintendent (Legal), Board of Intermediate, Gujranwala for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1995. The petitioner Mst. Humma Sultana Butt took Intermediate Second Annual Examination, 1993 under Roll No.360. A charge‑sheet No.203‑SD was served upon her by the respondent‑Board on 17‑2‑1994 with he allegation that she allowed Roll No.361 to copy from her Physics Paper‑B answer book. The petitioner appeared before the Disciplinary Committee who through its order, dated 28th February, 1994 came to the conclusion that the charge of copying could not be established, as such, exonerated the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent Board went in appeal. Since there was allegation against the petitioner that she ‑admitted her guilt before the Centre Superintendent as such the statement of the latter was recorded wherein she totally denied the allegations levelled against her. It is pertinent to mention here that before the Disciplinary Committee she categorically stated that her alleged statement was recorded under duress. Keeping all these aspects in mind the Appellate Committee did not interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Committee and dismissed the appeal of the respondent Board through order dated 13‑9‑1994. Feeling dissatisfied the respondent Board took up the matter before the Jaiza Committee, where simply on the alleged statement of the petitioner on Form S.F‑8 she was disqualified for four examinations.

2. Argument has been advanced that respondent Board did not have any right of appeal as reflected from rule 17 of the Board Rules, that the respondent Board took this matter after six months before Jaiza Committee which has got no legal sanction; that there is no proof of allegation levelled against the petitioner, even the Superintendent of Examinations also gave his statement exonerating her. Even otherwise the order of the respondent‑Board is illegal as under Rule 8 of Chapter 6 the respondent‑Board could only disqualify for three examinations while in this case the petitioner has been disqualified for four examinations. Reliance is placed upon Javed Hotel (Pvt,) Ltd, v. C.D.A., Islamabad through Chairman etc. (PLD 1994 Lahore 315), Muhammad Shahzad v. Principal, Nishtar Medical College, Multan etc. (1994 CLC 565) and Syed Qaiser Sajjad Sherazi v. B.I.S.E. (1991 CLC 726).

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the entire facts of the cue. The argument that the respondent Board did not have any right to file the appeal is devoid of any force as through an amendment made on the 7th of March, 1989, this right had been allowed, However, the perusal of file demonstrates that there is nothing on the record to implicate the petitioner except her forced inculpatory statement in a slipshod manner. It is admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and I have myself gone through the copies of these two candidates i.e. Roll Nos.368 and

361. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that one has copied from the other. The Disciplinary Committee as well as the Appellate Committee probed the matter thoroughly and exonerated the petitioner of the charge. The Centre Superintendent also did not advance the case of the respondent Board. The Jaiza Committee without appreciating the record passed order in a slipshod manner simply taking into consideration the forced alleged statement of the petitioner. In these circumstances, I do not have got any other option but to accept this writ petition and set aside the order of the Jaiza Committee as having been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect Respondent Board is, therefore, directed to declare the result of the petitioner without waste of much time. A.A./152‑L/L? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.