1998 PLP 627 (CLC)

134 ROLL. NO. 1522 ANNUAL 1992 URDU ENGLUSH ISLAMIC EDUCATION PAK STUDIES PHYSICS CHEMISTRY BIO 126 110 35 35 134 14+39+53 fail 125

10. The comparison of the results of two examinations shows that except in the subject of Chemistry, there was not much difference between the, marks obtained by the petitioner in both these examinations. In the First Annual Examination, 1992, the petitioner had failed in only practical of the subject of chemistry but qualified in both papers of theory.

11. The petitioner had a brilliant academic record previously. He obtained merit‑scholarships in his Middle and Matriculation Examinations and had also received National Talent Award. In the First Annual Examination, 1992, the petitioner had obtained total 685 marks whereas in the Second Annual Examination, 1992, he obtained 781 marks. This little increase could be due to the fact that the petitioner got more time for preparation before re‑appearing in the Second Annual Examination, 1992. It is not the case of the respondent that in the First Annual Examination, 1992, the petitioner had used unfair means wherein he had passed in the subject of Biology by obtaining 125 marks. In the Supplementary Examination he obtained 134 marks in Biology. In the presence of these facts. I am of the view that the petitioner was not likely to resort to unfair means of impersonation to pass in the subject of Biology, or for that matter in any other subject.

12. The stance of the Board that the show‑cause notice was issued to the petitioner which was followed by the reminders and thereafter, the Discipline Committee took an ex parse decision which was also conveyed to the petitioner, has been denied by him. The only proof produced by the Board are the aforesaid two Registers. I have not been shown any law or departmental instructions under which these Registers are being maintained by the clerks. These Registers are also not authenticated by the Incharge of the Department/Branch or any competent officer. These Registers are being maintained by the clerks at their discretion without checks or supervision. Both the Registers contain cuttings and overwritings. The entries are very sketchy and have no reference to any decision/order. The entries in respect of the petitioner's disqualification are as follows:‑ Case no. Roll No. Centre Particulars Institution/District Offence Decision 748 35039 Bio,physics, Eng. Muazzam Khan s/o CH. Nazir ahmad Chanda 6.10 (ii) Six months The entries under column 'Centre' are irrelevant and another column is left blank. The entry of 'Six Exams' under column, "Decision" does not explain anything. On the same page of this Register, entries under column 'Decision' relating to Case No.749 have been completely scored out and re‑written. Similarly, in the Despatch Register, the entry made on 22‑5‑1993 in respect of the present petitioner is scored out and overwritten. Therefore, to the entries in these Registers made in such circumstances and without authentication by any Competent Authority, presumption of correctness cannot be attached. In the case, "Government of Sindh v. Saiful Haq Hashmi" (1993 SCMR 956), relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, it was held that " ....all Official acts are presumed to be regular unless proved to have been done irregularly". Therefore, these entries cannot be regarded as proof of the assertions made by Q the respondent Board, particularly when heavy penalty is being imposed upon the affected persons. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the petition suffered from laches inasmuch as he was disqualified in 1993 whereas he filed writ petition in January, 1996. According to, the petitioner, he came to know about his alleged disqualification in the' month of January, 1996 whereafter he filed the present writ petition. Since I have held that it is not established that the petitioner had received the show‑cause notice or intimation) of his disqualification in the year 1993, this plea has no force. Learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that the photographs and the signatures on two admission forms relating to Intermediate First Annual Examination, 1992 and Second Annual Examination, 1992 are different which proves his impersonation. I have myself checked both the forms which have been placed on record by the learned counsel for the respondent. The photographs on both these forms when minutely examined are of the same person. However, the signatures on the forms in English are different but those in Urdu on both the forms are the same, therefore, this plea is of no significance.

13. In the present case the future of the petitioner is at stake which cannot be allowed to be marred in this manner. On the basis of the result card which was issued by the respondent Board according to which the petitioner had qualified Intermediate Examination by securing 781 marks, the petitioner got admission in B.A. and passed the B.A. Examination from the University of Punjab in the year 1995. However, according to the entries made in the aforesaid Registers the petitioner stands disqualified for six consecutive examinations of Intermediate and consequently he shall have to re‑appear in the Intermediate Examination and two years thereafter in the B.A. Examination. To prove the charge of impersonation against the petitioner, with such serious consequences, heavy burden lay on the respondent not only to establish the charge but also that show‑cause notice was issued to the petitioner which he had received and that the petitioner deliberately disassociated from the disciplinary proceedings after having full knowledge of the same. Such a proof is lacking in the present case. This writ petition is, therefore, accepted and the respondent is directed to issue to the petitioner the requisite certificate relating to Intermediate! Examination of the petitioner in accordance with the result card, dated 6‑2‑1993. No order as to costs. A.A./M‑424/L Petition accepted