1999 PLP 1315 (CLC)

Jawaid Shaukat Malik for Petitioner. Shahid Waheed for Respondent. Dates of hearing; 22nd and 23rd April, 1998. JUDGMENT . The petitioner appeared in the Intermediate Part II Examination under Roll Number 28643. On 24‑4‑1997, he appeared to take Mathematic II Paper when according to the allegations, he ran away with the answer book, Centre Superintendent duly reported the incident to the police, who recorded the same. On 16‑6‑1997, the petitioner was issued a charge‑sheet on this allegation and was asked to answer the same and to show as to why the petitioner should not be penalized under regulation 6.8(vi), Petitioner replied on 24‑6‑1997. On 18‑10‑1997 the Disciplinary Committee after hearing the Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, Invigilator, Sub‑Examiner and the candidate/petitioner found the charge proved and disqualified the petitioner from taking three examinations till Annual Examination 1998. The Disciplinary Committee also recommended constitution of a High Powered Committee to discover the complicity of the employees of the Board in the case. On 10‑11‑1997 the petitioner appealed and on 10‑12‑1997, petitioner's appeal was rejected. Petitioner's revision, dated 30‑12‑1997 was also dismissed on 3‑2‑1998. It is against this action that petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition with the prayer that the same may be declared as without lawful authority, all the three impugned orders, dated 18‑10‑1997 (Annexure "K/1"), dated 15‑12‑1997 (Annexure "1") and dated 6‑2‑1998 (Annexure "M/1 ") be also declared as without lawful authority and respondents‑Board be directed to issue the result of the petitioner so that he can further pursue his studies. 2: Report and parawise comments were called for by this Court which were duly submitted, Petitioner was granted opportunity to examine the same and if so advised to file a rejoinder which the petitioner has done. Since the case was complete in all respect, the same has been heard finally and is being disposed of by this judgment. 3 Mr. Javaid Shaukat Malik, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action taken is without any evidence inasmuch as the Superintendent, the Deputy Superintendent and Invegilator have made inconsistent statements, on different occasions in respect of the incident of alleged taking away of the answer book by the petitioner. It is pointed out that although report was lodged with the police on 24‑4‑1997 but on the next day i.e.25‑4‑1997 the Superintendent deviated from the statement made in the report to the police and gave in writing to father of the petitioner that the answer book may have been misplaced and he will advise the Board to locate it in the relevant bandals. Similar inconsistency is highlighted in respect of the statements made by other concerned officials. It is argued that in these circumstances the impugned orders are bad as they do not reckon into consideration the inconsistency and the infirmities. Learned counsel has also highlighted the academic record of the petitioner to show that not only the petitioner has all along been an excellent student but even his brother has done extremely well during the course of their school and college studies. One of the brothers namely Ali Saeed, is claimed to be working in Houston in U.S.A. after obtaining degree ; of Electric Engineer from the University of Houston. His other brother Qasim Saeed is also claimed to have obtained a degree in Finance from the same " University and the said brother is stated to be now employed in ANZ Grindlays Bank. Learned counsel has pointed out that according to unofficial Intermediate result petitioner has obtained 662/1100 marks securing percentage of 60.18.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Shahid Waheed, Advocate appearing for respondents‑Board has defended the impugned orders by pointing out that the inquiry to be held by the authorities of the Board in such cases is not like a trial in a Civil or a Criminal Court. For this purpose he relied upon judgments reported as Ahmad and 3 others v. Vice‑Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology and another PLD 1981 SC 464 and Board of, Intermediate and Secondary Education and others 1988 SCMR

329. He also urged that if the basic requirement of hearing have been met and inquiry conducted by examining the concerned officials, thexe is no scope to interfere on a finding of fact in Constitutional jurisdiction. He has relied upon judgments reported as Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Chairmatr and another PLD 1973 Lah. 600, Tariq Javed v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha 1984 CLC 662 and Mahmood Ahmed v. Controller, Examination Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan and another 1987 CI.,C 891 fox this purpose. He has further produced the original record/file to show that proceedings have been held in extenso to determine not only the charge against the petitioner but to uncover the employees of the Board involved in this affair. He has tried to show that the paper was removed by the petitioner from the Centre, was later on delivered to Chief Secrecy Officer who made interpolations in the relevant record and passed the same to the Sub Examiner for marking. According to his claim, the Board has found the Chief Secrecy Officer and the Sub‑Examiner involved in this affair and have already proceeded against them. He has also referred to the findings of the Inquiry Committee to the effect that the alleged inconsistency in the statements of the Centre Superintendent and the other officials was justified as a matter of strategy,the staff was threatened with dire consequences and it was likely that on 25‑4‑1997 the situation at the Centre would take an ugly shape. According to the learned counsel, the explanation of the Centre Superintendent having been accepted correct by the Inquiry Committee this Court in Constitutional jurisdiction should not be concerned with the quantum of proof and for this purpose, he has relied upon judgment reported as Malik Habibur Rehman v. Siddique Ahmad Khan and 2 others PLD 1972 Lah. 8.

5. The scope of interference in Constitutional jurisdiction in such matters has been laid down by the earlier precedents. This Court in exercise of power of judicial review is not to act as a Court of appeal nor it can substitute its own findings for that of the authorities of the Board. This Court has to see that authorities of the Board have acted within the parameters of statutory law and in the absence of statutory law providing for procedure, within the parameter of principles of natural justice, good conscience and fair play. The Board is not required to act as a Court and to conduct. a trial. It has to investigate the charge and to come to a conclusion as to whether it stands established or not. No question of permitting a person to cross‑examine the persons deposing arises. (Though in a given case, the Board may do so). The affected person is required to be heard and he can give his point of view in writing also. If the inquiry his been conducted and a finding arrived at in accordance with these principles, the matter ends in so far as the Court in exercise of its power of judicial review is concerned. The finding of fact will have to be accepted as correct unless of course it is shown to be perverse ex facie. Merely because a different view of the material is possible or a different inference can be drawn, would not be a ground to disagree with the findings or to substitute a finding of fact.

6. During the course of extensive hearing the whole ‑ thrust of the arguments of Mr. Javaid Shaukat Malik; Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has been to emphasize, retierate and highlight the inconsistency in the statements of the concerned officials. As noted, this, inconsistency was also considered by the Committee and the explanation of the Superintendent and other officials that the second statement was made as a matter of strategy to avoid any ugly situation, was accepted. This view cannot be said to be perverse. It is clear that when the petitioner appeared in the Examination Centre on the next date his father was also there. He was questioned as to why he ran away with tile answer book on 24‑4‑1997. It was then that he took the position that he did not run away with the script. His father intervened and in the situation which was developing and in view of the threats extended, 'as has been claimed, the examination staff acted to appease the petitioner and his father. This explanation has been accepted by all the officials/members of the Committee/Board. It cannot be said to be perverse. As is apparent from the record produced by learned counsel for the Board, the Committee consisting of three Senior Professors has also found the Chief Secrecy Officer as well as the Sub‑Examiner involved in the affair They have already been proceeded against Not a word has been uttered by Mr. Javaid Shaukat Malik, Advocate against the members of the Committee or any other official of Board so as to show that somebody was to inimical towards the petitioner. No allegation of mala fide has been levelled, muchless substantiated. In the circumstance, therefore, no interference ID whatsoever is called for by this Court.

7. The argument that the petitioner as well as his brothers had been enjoying excellent academic record is not relevant to decide the controversy. What this Court has to see is whether the findings of the respondents‑Board to the effect that charge against the petitioner stands proved is correct or not, and whether the penalty imposed or action is in accordance with law or not. The past attainments of the family are irrelevant in this exercise.

8. For what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./H‑78/L Petition dismissed.