P L D 1958 (W (PLP)

M. Anwar A. A. G. for Respondents. Abdur Rahman, for M. Anwar, (except on 17th March 1958). Dates of hearing: 7th, 12th, 13th and 17th March 1958. AKHLAQUE HUSSAIN, J.‑The circumstances which have led to this writ petition by Muhammad Munir Shahid, a 2nd year, F. Sc. (Non Medical) student of Government College Sargodha, are as follows. In December 1957, there was a terminal or house test examination of the 2nd year students. Only such students as passed this examination were to be sent up for the final examination, which was to be held by the Board of Secondary Education. The result of the college examination was announced on the 9th of January 1958, and the petitioner was declared to have been successful. He was informed by the second respondent, Khan Masud Hasan Khan, a lecturer and controller of examinations in the college, that while examining his answer books on A and B Chemistry papers he suspected that some of answers had been copied either from some books or papers. On the 14th January 1958, the second respondent served the petitioner with a notice which read: "I find that you have copied from some book or papers in your Chemistry papers. Can you explain 7" The petitioner replied to this notice with a notice from some local lawyer to tile respondent No. 1; the Principal of the College, asserting that the charge against him had been made maliciously on the instigation of certain persons and that in case he (the petitioner) was detained from the University examination, he would claim Rs. 10,000 as damages. On the 21st of January the second respondent served the petitioner with a notice requir ing him to submit to a re‑test in Chemistry. The petitioner returned the notice with the remarks: "I did not copy from anybody or any book. I cannot take up re‑test." On the 31st of January the admission form of the petitioner, along with those of some other students, was sent to the Board of Secondary Education, Lahore, for the F. Sc. Examination. It appears that on or after the 21st January the Principal asked for written reports from the second respondent and another teacher of science in the college. Both have submitted detailed reports giving reasons for their belief that the petitioner had copied certain answers from two books on Chemistry. We might note here that the answers, although they appear to have been copied, are not a word for word copy. The possibility that the petitioner might have memorised the answers from the books cannot be altogether ruled out either by a comparison of the answer books with the books in question or by the reasons men tioned in the report of the two lecturers. The Principal called a meeting of the College Council, the respondent No. 3, on the 1st of February and it was therein decided that the petitioner was guilty of having used unfair means. He was accordingly rusticated by the Council for one year. As the matter was urgent we made the following order after hearing both the parties at length for several days:‑ " The order of the College Council, respondent No. 3, rusticating the petitioner, is hereby set aside. We direct the Council to hold a meeting on the 20th instant at 10 a.m. and decide the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner, should be desire to be heard. We shall record our reasons later on." The date and the time, of the meeting was fixed by us with the consent of the Principal who was present in Court on the date when the order was passed. We now proceed to record the reasons which made us to pass that order. It is admitted by both the parties that the College council alone has tile power to rusticate or punish a student in a case like the present one. The Council admittedly was held on the 1st of February without previous notice. It did not call for any explanation from the petitioner or heard him before passing the sentence which, apart from the loss of one year to the petitioner, will mean a life‑time stigma against him. Justice requires that no person should be condemned without being heard. This is al principle which is to be observed not only by the law Courts but also by all persons who have the power to condemn or punish their fellow human beings; and is equally binding upon persons in authority even in the educational institutions. If any authority were needed, we would refer to the cases of Ehsan Ilahi v. The Board of Secondary Education (Writ Petition No. 1495 of 1957), decided by this Court on the 3rd of February 1958; and Dipa Pal v. University of Calcutta (A I R 1952 Cal. 594). We wish to add that in this case there is no question of any malice or the slightest departure from integrity on the part of any of the respondents or any other member of the college staff. It is only a case of misjudgment or error, grievous or otherwise. In the peculiar circumstances of this case the parties shall bear their own costs. A. H. Order accordingly.