1998 PLP 710 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.

This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13-12-1995 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby the Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The facts briefly are that on 29-6-1994 F.I.A. raided a hotel in Sitara Market, Islamabad and recovered 10 Answer Sheets including the Answer Sheet of Mathematics of Part-II of the petitioner. According to the Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (Board for short) "it was an arranged attempt by the petitioner alongwith other interested candidates of the same examination session with the conspiracy of the employees of the Board to tamper with his Answer Sheets outside the Examination Hall by removing them from the Secrecy Section and then to erase and re-write correct answers". According to the Board Authorities, previous similar attempts on the part of the petitioner had proved fruitful and he had succeeded in tampering with his answer sheets of his Part-I Examination. In this context, his Maths-I (4 pages), Physics-I (4 pages), Physics-II (5 pages) and English-II (12 pages) were found to have been taken out of the Secrecy Section and were "chemically so erased and re-written vide Technical Report Annex-B". Resultantly, the result of the petitioner was withheld. Petitioner was accordingly served with a charge-sheet dated 21st of June, 1995 by the Board to which he filed reply on 28-6-1995. He was heard in person by the Disciplinary Action Sub-Committee on 28-6-1995. In the meantime,, he filed on 18-4-1995 a civil suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar. The F.I.A., however, cleared the petitioner of the charges of his criminal involvement in the affair perhaps on the hypothesis that he was not caught red-handed at the time of raid. The grievance made out by the petitioner in the Constitutional petition was "that notwithstanding his clearance by the F.I.A., respondent No.2 issued a notification on 23-7-1995 whereunder the result of the petitioner of Parts-I and II of Annual, 1994 was cancelled and was further disqualified in appearing in any subsequent examination till Annual Examination, 1995. His appeal before the Appellate Forum of the Board having failed he had approached the High Court to have the order of cancellation of his result of both Paris-I and II (Pre-Engineering Examination) and his disqualification to appear in the subsequent examination, annulled principally on the ground of impropriety and mala fides.

3. In their written statement filed by respondents Nos. l and 2, the assertions made by the petitioner in his Constitutional petition were traversed in seriatim.

4. According to the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court, notwithstanding the exoneration of the petitioner by the F.I.A., "he was absolved of his criminal liability simply because he could not be arrested on the spot like his other colleagues". The charge of tampering with the different papers was held to be abundantly proved from Annexures ' B' and ' E' to the written statement of respondents Nos. l and

2. He was duly served with a charge-sheet to which he not only put in a reply but he was also heard in person wherein he almost admitted that he might have used erasers in the Examination Hall in the shape of ink removers. In the opinion of the learned Judges, an incorrect answer could be crossed partially or in toto and could be re-written in the answer-sheet or in the extra-sheet. The learned Judges, therefore, concluded that it was not a case of mala fides on the part of the respondents; that in collusion with the officials of the Secrecy Section of the Board, he had managed to tamper with the answer-sheets of Part-I as well as Part-II of F.Sc. Examination. In reaching this conclusion, the following reasoning weighed with the learned Judges:-- "In collusion with Staff of Secrecy Department, he had managed to tamper with answer-sheets of Part-I as well as Part-II of F.Sc. Examination. It was so because during Annual examination of Part-II, he had re-appeared in three papers of Part-I. It is not a mere coincidence that out of answer-sheets of thousands of students, it was his answer-sheet of Mathematics that was recovered from the hotel and on ground of which his remaining papers were checked and also found to be tampered with. As the tampering involved both the papers of Part I and Part-II, therefore, the disqualification from both the parts was neither illegal nor harsh. The petitioner should better resort to hard work and try to conduct well in the next examination. The writ petition is hereby dismissed."

5. Mr. Hussain Khan, Advocate-on-Record, for the petitioner has reiterated his contentions before us which he had urged before the High Court that there was neither any complaint of unfair means against the petitioner nor he had any assistance inside or outside the Examination Hall and that, therefore, firstly, his result was withheld and, later on, his entire examination of Part-I and Part-II had been illegally cancelled. He further submitted that there was no proof of the charge that the petitioner had tampered with his papers referred to in the two impugned two notifications notwithstanding his exoneration by the F.I.A. Authorities of the charges.

6. The learned Judges in the High Court had considered the contentions raised before us and had repelled them with sound and cogent reasons. We find that the judgment of the High Court suffers from no such legal infirmity as to require our interference. The petition having no substance is dismissed and leave to appeal is not granted. A.A./N-11/S Leave refused.