2001 PLP 2620 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑ Using unfair means in examination‑‑ Punishment for‑‑‑Candidate having been found using unfair means in examination, the Disciplinary Committee of the Institution debarred him from taking three examinations‑‑‑Appellate Committee, in appeal, reduced said punishment to debarring the candidate for two examinations‑‑ Revisional Authority/Chairman rejected the revision of the candidate and restored order earlier passed by the Disciplinary Committee whereby the candidate was debarred from taking three examinations ‑‑‑ Revisional Authority enhancing the punishment by restoring earlier order of Disciplinary Committee did not issue any show‑cause notice to the candidate‑‑‑Validity‑‑Authority of the Revisional Committee was restricted to examine the correctness and vires of the order of Appellate Committee whereby punishment of the candidate was reduced ‑‑‑Revisional Committee if on its own motion felt that reduction of sentence by the Appellate Committee was not proper, it could reverse the same only after notifying the candidate but no notice was sent to the candidate‑‑ Candidate having been condemned unheard, order of Revisional Committee, was declared illegal by the High Court, however it was left open to the Revisional Authority to proceed afresh if so advised. Mian Shahid Iqbal for Petitioner. Sh. Shahid Waheed for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st May, 1001. Petitioner appeared in the Secondary School Examination, 2000 (1st Annual) under Roll No.7242, held in March, 2000, by the respondent‑Board. An unfair means case was instituted against the petitioner on the charges that (i) objectionable material was recovered while attempting Mathematics paper on 15‑3‑2000, (ii) the petitioner refused to make a statement, (iii) petitioner defaced the answer book and (iv) petitioner tore away some part of the answer book. The petitioner contesting the allegations by filing reply and otherwise. The Disciplinary Committee, however, concluded that some of the charges stood established and as such imposed the penalty of debarring the petitioner front taking Supplementary 2000 to Annual 2001. In other words as stated in para. 9 of the petition, the petitioner was debarred from taking three examinations. On appeal by the petitioner the sentence was reduced to debarring the petitioner to two examinations. Petitioner further filed a revision. The Revisional Authority/Chairman rejected the revision and restored the order of the Disciplinary Committee. In other words debarred the petitioner from taking three examinations.

2. Apart from other points, it is urged that the Revisional Authority could not have restored original punishment, without notice to the petitioner to this effect. It is stated that this is particularly so when there was no counter‑appeal before the Revisional Authority. In defence it is replied by learned counsel for the Board that Revisional Authority fully heard the petitioner on all the aspects of the case and as such the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner has no force.

3. In the reply filed by the Board no material has been placed to show that the petitioner was given to show‑cause notice for enhancement of punishment/restoration of the order of Disciplinary Committee. It is also conceded by the learned counsel for the Board that as such the Revisional Authority did not issue the specific notice. He, however, urged that no such notice is required. This argument has to be rejected. The Appellate Committee had reduced the sentence to two examinations. Petitioner invoked the revisional jurisdiction for getting rid of this sentence. There was no counter‑appeal or revision. Normally, therefore, the authority of the Revisional Committee is restricted to examining the correctness and vires of the order of Appellate Committee. However, if the Revisional Committee, of its own motion felt that reduction of sentence by the Appellate Committee was not proper, it could revise the same only after notifying the petitioner. Such a notice ought to have put the petitioner to her guards that the Committee proposes to restore the sentence imposed by the Disciplinary Committee. As no such notice has been issued to the petitioner and apparently the petitioner on this aspect has been condemned unheard, the impugned order of the Revisional Committee/Chairman Board has to be and is hereby declared as without lawful authority and consequently of no legal effect. If so advised it will be open to the Revisional Committee to proceed afresh but only in accordance with law.

4. Petitioner was permitted to take the Matriculation Examination commencing on 24‑3‑2001 under the interim orders of this Court. The result of the examination shall be subject to further orders of the Revisional Committee, if any. Parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./A‑271/L Order accordingly.