1994 PLP 1232 (MLD)

In this Constitutional petition legality of recommendation orders dated 14-10-1993 made by the Revision Committee and order of Chairman of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore dated 11-11-1993 have been called in question.

2. The allegation against the petitioner was that while solving paper English-A of Intermediate Annual Examination, he was caught red-handed copying an answer of a question from written material. A show-cause notice was given to him and the Discipline Committee after holding inquiry held him guilty and an order was passed on 19-8-1993 disqualifying him to appear in the examination in question as also two subsequent examinations. On appeal filed by the petitioner the Appeal Committee held that the charges against the petitioner had not been proved, therefore, the appeal was accepted through order dated 4-9-1993 the order of Discipline Committee dated 19-8-1993 was set aside and the petitioner exonerated.

3. The original record has been produced by learned counsel for the respondents which shows that after the decision of the Appeal Committee the Controller considered the case and gave an opinion that a revision should be filed before the Revision Committee against the decision of the Appeal Committee. The said proposal was placed before the Chairman who was the competent authority, to give permission to take the matter before the Revision Committee who granted the permission on 12-9-1993. The two members of the Revision Committee called the petitioner for 25-9-1993. According to the noting of the members of the Committee the petitioner was heard. It' was ordered that the Centre Superintendent should appear before the Committee. No date was fixed for appearance of the Superintendent and as such no date was also notified to the petitioner for his appearance. It appears that on 14-10-1993 the Superintendent appeared before the Revision Committee who made a statement which was reduced into writing. He stated that he did not catch hold of the petitioner while copying the answer from printed material. According to him it was the duty of the clerk. He also stated that on no paper he had put his signatures. The Revision Committee instead of calling upon the clerk recommended that the order of Appeal Committee should be set aside. This recommendation was placed before the Chairman who approved the same through order dated 11-11-1993 as a consequence of which the order dated 4-9-1993 passed by the Appeal Committee stood set aside and that of the order of the Discipline Committee dated 19-8-1993 restored.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. From the record it appears that a person who at the spot apprehends the student while copying an answer has to make a declaration about the same against a column prescribed for that purpose. Against the said column there is no such statement recorded by the person who apprehended the petitioner. There is also a column which provides that the student who was apprehended, his statement was also to be incorporated against the said column. The said column is also blank from which it is clear that the statement of the petitioner not taken and recorded and no note bas also been given to the effect that when asked to make statement the petitioner declined to do so, therefore, argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner declined to make statement cannot be accepted. There is yet another column against which Naazam has to record his statement. The said column is also blank. On 14-10-1993 the Revision Committee called the Superintendent who got his statement recorded but no notice was given to the petitioner to appear before the said Committee on that date, therefore, the decision/recommendation taken or made by the said Committee was made and given without providing him opportunity of hearing. The said recommendation has been approved by the Chairman who also did not hear the petitioner. The decisions/recommendations made and given by the Revision Committee as also the approval accorded to the same by the Chairman on 11-11-1993 are not only violative of rules and principle of natural justice but also suffers from arbitraridess. The said finding and the order is also based on no evidence but on conjectures and surmises and cannot be sustained. The order passed by the Appeal Committee on 4-9-1993 was just and proper and there was no illegality in it, as such, could not have been interfered with.

5. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition is accepted. Order dated 14-10-1993 passed by the Revision Committee and the order passed by the Chairman on 11-11-1993, are hereby declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect and quashed. In the result the order dated 4-9-1993 of the Appeal Committee stands restored. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T/M-1466/L Petition accepted