2009 PLP 385 (YLR)

MALIK SAEED EJAZ, J.

Through the instant petition, show-cause notice contained in letter No.271/UMC dated 1-11-2007 and the decision of the Disciplinary Committee (respondent No.3) conveyed to the petitioner vide letter No 577/UMC dated 6-10-2008 have been assailed, whereby the Disciplinary Committee by levelling allegation against the petitioner that additional answer book was recovered from him in the examination hall when he was appearing in Paper IV of B-Pharmacy second Profession, First Annual Examination, 2007, disqualified the petitioner for three years from passing First Annual Examination 2007 till Second Annual, 2009.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a student of second Profession of B-Pharmacy in Baha-ud-Din Zakaria University, Multan. He received a show-cause notice from respondent No.3 bearing No. 271/UMC dated 1-11-2007, wherein it was alleged that on 10-10-2007 when he was appearing in Paper IV Pharma (Cognosy) Pharma D as Second Profession, First Annual, 2007, was caught red handed by the invigilating staff, along with an additional answer book on which some material was written.

3. During inquiry it transpired that the said additional answer book was got issued by the petitioner. from the invigilating staff on 6-10-2007 when he appeared in Paper V of the Second Profession and instead of attaching the same with the main answer book pertaining to Paper V, he smuggled it out, without depositing it with the Superintendent of Examination and retained the same with him for using it in the same examination of Paper IV, held on 10-10-2007. When the petitioner was copying the material written on such additional answer book, he was caught red handed. On the report of the Superintended of Examinations, the case of unfair means was initiated against the petitioner which was referred to the Disciplinary Committee which, after serving show-cause notice upon the petitioner, gave him opportunity to defend charge levelled against him and ultimately he was disqualified for three years from passing 1st Annual Examination, 2007, and for appearing in any University Examination till II-A/2009.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the impugned letters are illegal and the decision of the Disciplinary Committee is liable to be set aside on the ground that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend the allegations. Further contends that the alleged case of unfair means was made in the year 2007 and its decision was conveyed to the petitioner on 18-10-2008 when he was going to appear in the Examination being held on 25-10-2008. As such, the mala fide on the part of the respondents towards the petitioner is proved. During the course of arguments, the petitioner came forward and stated that the alleged answer book was not recovered from him, but, the same was placed in the Examination Hall and the invigilator involved him falsely by concocting the above story. He requested the Court to summon the record along with the additional answer book and asserted that the same would not be found to have been written by him or the additional answer book could have been related to him in any manner.

5. Today, learned counsel for the respondents has produced the original record along with the original answer book and the alleged additional answer book before this Court. When both the answer books were examined, it was found that the portion of the first page, which relates to detail of examination, paper number subject and date of examination, in which the candidate was appearing, was filled in by the petitioner. The perforated part of the first page of the alleged answer book was also found written by the petitioner, as the writing on the original answer book is similar to that of the first page of additional answer book. As mentioned above, the writing on the alleged additional book on the relevant columns is the same which is found on the original answer book issued to the petitioner on 10-10-2007 in paper IV, which clearly indicates that the petitioner, while appearing in Paper V on 6-10-2007, got issued the alleged additional answer book but after making entries on the relevant columns of first page of such sheet, he smuggled if out without returning the same to the Superintendent of Examination and the same was used on 10-10-2007 when he appeared in Paper IV. As such, the alleged answer book was very much related to the petitioner who used it for copying some material from it. He was caught red handed while copying some material from additional sheet. Thus, he has been rightly punished and does not deserve any leniency.

6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find no illegality in the impugned order. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. M.H./A-162/L Petition dismissed.