P L D 1978 Lahore 988 (PLP)

Dates of hearing : 28th September and 1st October 1977. The petitioner appeared in the Intermediate Examination of the Board of Secondary Education, Lahore, in the Fall of 1976 with Roll No. 1933. The allegations against him are that on the 13th of October 1976 while taking the examination in Physics-B Paper he alongwith another candidate copied certain answers from the answer book of Roll No. 1934 as well as from some other papers. All the three candidates were warned against indulging in the malpractice but they did not desist. Instead, they created disturbance in the Examination Hall. When they were called upon to make statements, they refused. Consequently the Superintendent of the Examination Hall reported the matter to the higher authorities who served the petitioner with a show-cause notice. After taking into consideration the petitioner's reply and also giving him a hearing, the Discipline Committee held that the charges of creating disturbance in the Examination Hall and of refusing to give a statement had not been established. But the Committee held the petitioner guilty of taking assistance from the other candidate and debarred him, as result thereof, from passing the examination and also from appearing in the three succeeding examinations. The petitioner appealed to the Committee of Appeal against the decision of the Discipline Committee. The Appeal Committee heard the petitioner, recorded his statement afresh but finding. that "the solution of Question No. 2 (b) in the petitioner's answer book tallied word for word with the solution of the said question, in the answer. book of Roll No. 1934", rejected his appeal considering him to have been rightly punished by the Discipline Committee. The present writ petition is directed against the orders of the Discipline Committee and the Committee of Appeal. The petitioner's case is that he was neither allowed to adduce evidence nor to explain away the evidence on the basis of which he was found guilty. According to him he was not even shown the material which according to the authorities established his guilt. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, contends that a full opportunity to show cause having been given to the petitioner and the principles of natural justice having been duly observed, the writ petition is not competent. But the circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the learned members of the Discipline and Appeal Committees failed to apply their mind properly to the facts of the case. In the first place the Discipline Committee did not give any reasons for holding the petitioner guilty. It is, therefore, not clear how they arrived at that conclusion. From the order of the Appeal Committee, however, it appears that by comparing the answer book of the petitioner with that of Roll No. 1934 they found that the former had copied the answer to Question 2 (b) from the answer book of Roll No. 1934. According to them the answers to the Question No. 2 (b) in the two answer books tallied with each other word for word. But it is to be noted that Question No. 2 (b) was a numerical question and not a descriptive one. Therefore, it is not surprising that the answer should be similar. However, it is evident from the record which is placed before me that the answers do not in fact tally word for word. The points of difference occur in Lines Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7 and

9. The difference are no doubt of a very minor nature but since in the solution of a numerical question two answers are always likely to be similar, even these minor differences are sufficient to raise a reasonable belief that the two candidates solved the question independently. It is also to be noted that after solving question No. 2 (b) the petitioner solved three more questions. So, if he was found copying by the Superintendent of the Examination Hall, it must have been when he was copying Question No. 2(b). But there is no explanation why after having been caught red-handed he was allowed to sit in the Hall and answer the remaining questions. This circumstance also creates a grave doubt with regard to they allegation of copying levelled against the petitioner by the Supervisory Staff, which doubts are confirmed by the fact that the other allegations regarding creation of disturbance, etc., could not be established. In these circumstances I am of the view that there was no justification for punishing the petitioner. Accordingly, I declare the impugned orders of the Discipline Committee and the Committee of Appeal to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, which orders suffer from want of proper application of mind. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs. S. A. H. Petition accepted.