2009 PLP 347 (YLR)

S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.

I propose to decide the following Writ Petitions by this single order as subject matter of both the petitions is the same:-- (i) W.P. No.4038-08 titled "Muhammad Younas v. Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University"; and (ii) W.P. No.4039-08 titled "Khalid Mehmood v. Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University".

2. Briefly, both the petitioners in the above-mentioned writ petitions are the students of B.Sc. Computer Engineering, Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University and appeared in Ist Annual Examination 2007. The external examiner namely Engineer Dr. Abdul Baqi during the course of marking has found similarity in the hand writing of Muhammad Younas with Khalid Mehmood petitioner. It was extra-sheet attached with the answer book of petitioner Muhammad Younas. At the first instance a case was registered against both the petitioners and a show-cause notice was issued. After receipt of reply the disciplinary committee provided them an opportunity for personal hearing. Allegedly during the appearance both the petitioners denied the allegation. The disciplinary committee proceed in the light of regulation No.13, found them guilty and imposed the penalty to disqualify them from appearing in the examination for a period of three years (six chances). Thereafter, review was filed had been rejected on 16-2-2008.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that they never admitted the allegation before the disciplinary committee. The question of similarity of the hand writing was involved which has not properly been sent for comparison to hand writing expert and has imposed the extreme punishment against the principle of natural justice, that this Court has to look into the matter by exercise of parental jurisdiction because the petitioners were not caught red-handed and it was the general assessment of the external examiner which has taken correct as it is and none of the class-teacher was examined by the disciplinary committee, and that it was a case based on mere presumption.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has controverted that the petitioners were charge-sheeted and afforded an opportunity. The disciplinary committee after affording an opportunity in the light of the similarity in the hand writing of both the petitioners have rightly arrived at that it was in one and the same hand writing.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred a judgment of this Court dated 30-5-2008 passed in Writ Petition No.1607 of 2008 in which the case of more serious in nature but the penalty imposed was reduced from three years to one year. Learned counsel for the respondents again resisted this ground alleging that the petitioners in a review against the decision of the disciplinary committee admitted their fault and commission of offence. However, he subscribes the view that penalty imposed for qualifying for three years is extreme and maximum, while regulation 13 provides punishment for three years which may be up to this period and lesser if is awarded would be sufficient.

6. Heard. Submission made and perusal of Regulation No.13 reveals that it is a maximum punishment which could be imposed while lesser may also could be awarded. The petitioners admission, in review application is part of record and it cannot be denied. There is no illegality in the impugned punishment awarded but in exercise of parental jurisdiction, if lesser punishment is awarded would suffice to meet the ends of justice. The punishment awarded to disqualify for three years for passing any examination is reduced into 1-1/2 years. Disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./M-467/L Order accordingly.