P L D 1961 (W (PLP)

SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑

The Petitioner Malik Muhammad Nawaz's ,son Ghulam Muhammad was a student of the 10th class in the D. B. High School, Basal, District Campbellpur, where one Qureshi Nazir Ahmad was the Headmaster. Some differences arose between the Headmaster and the other members of the staff and an inquiry was held in this connection by the District Inspector of Schools. As a result of the inquiry the Chairman of the District Council, Campbellpur, (respondent No. 1), ordered the transfer of Qureshi Nazir Ahmad from the Basal High School to D. B. High School, Shadi Khan, and some of the subordinate staff was also transferred.

2. A few students of the D.B. High School, Basal arranged a "send off" for the Headmaster which was allegedly resented by Mr. Muhammad Nawaz, the successor Headmaster of the Basal School. He scolded the boys for doing so which resulted in a "fracas" between him and the students. An inquiry was then instituted into the conduct of the boys who had misbehaved with the Headmaster, and as a result they were rusticated from the D.B. High School, Basal, for a period of one year. They were not allowed their discharge certificates and their names were not sent up for the Matriculation Examination. It is alleged by the petitioner that his son Ghulam Muhammad was not initially included in the list of the rusticated boys. But dissatisfied with the instruction in the Basal School under the tutelage of the nevi Headmaster, he left that school on the 7th of November 1960 and joined the D. B. High School Jand on the 21st of November of the, same year. It is alleged that on the instigation of some of the petitioner's enemies it was falsely represented to the Chairman of the Attock District Council, Campbellpur that the petitioner's son Ghulam Muhammad was also involved in the quarrel with the Headmaster, whereupon the Chairman ordered his rustication also from the school .for a period of one year by his order dated the 6th of December 1950 resulting in his prevention to take the, matriculation examination held in April 1961.

3. This order is challenged in the present writ petition on the main ground, namely, that the Chairman of the Attock District Council, Cambellpur; had no legal authority to order the rusti cation of the petitioner's son which was done on false information and without making any inquiry. On the 28th of July 1961, when this case was first laid for hearing before a Bench of this Court the petitioner's son was allowed to appear in the Matriculation Examination with the direction that his result will not be declared till the decision of the writ petition. We are informed that he has since taken his examination, but the result is being withheld by the University because of the direction made by this Court.

4. The matter of expulsion and rustication of the students is covered by Article 192 of the Punjab Education Code, Second Edition, 1959, which is to the following effects :‑ "Expulsion and rustication‑The penalty of expulsion or rustication of a student for serious misconduct may be imposed in the case of (i) Government Colleges by the College Council, (ii) Government and Local Body Schools by the Inspector or Inspecrress as the case may be, and (iii) Privately managed schools by the Managing Body of the School. Inspector or Inspectress are also empowered to take disciplinary action against students of privately‑managed schools in cases of misconduct, which may come to their notice in the course of their work. No appeal lies against the orders of the punishing authority, but a copy of the orders passed by the (i) College Council and Inspector or Inspectress, and (ii) Managing Body shall be forwarded to the Director and Inspector or Inspectress, respectively, stating the nature of the offence committed by the student concerned for information. In the case of Colleges the rules regarding rustication and expulsion of students will be the same .as laid down in the Punjab University calendar. In the case of schools the period of rustication and expulsion shall not exceed one academic year.."

5. The School of the petitioner's son being a District Board School, is managed by a Local Body, and as such, the power of expulsion and rustication from such schools under the relevant portion of the above Article vests in the Inspector of Schools. As stated above, the main ground on which the order of rustication in the case of the petitioner's son is challenged, is that the order did not proceed from a competent authority, having been made not by the Inspector of Schools, but by the Chairman of the District Council.

6. In order to examine this contention we had sent for the departmental file of this matter from which the following facts are revealed : ‑ The Chairman of the Attock District Council, Campbellpar (respondent No. 1), who was also the Deputy Commissioner of the District, ordered an inquiry into the alleged misconduct of the students, including Ghulam Muhammad, the petitioner's son, for their alleged misbehaviour with the Headmaster. In compliance with that order, the District Inspector of Schools submitted his report to the Chairman, District Council, on the 3rd of December 1960, for orders. His findings were:

"(a) The whole plot was arranged by Muhammad Anees, Masud Khan and Ghulam Muhammad. The last‑named boy has not been mentioned by the present Headmaster, but a strong and pointed reference appears against him from his accomplices." (b) Emotional attachment and sentiments of `hero‑worship to the previous Headmaster M. Nazir Ahmad appears to have played a dominant part in avenging the imaginary wrong done to him through M. Muhammad Nawaz on his posting as Head master of Basal." "(c) There is no doubt that the boys have done much damage too their Headmaster without any opportunity of provocation, yet the weaknesses of adolescence have to be kept in view. To me they have proved delinquents under exploitation." The report appears to have received the attention of the Secretary of the Council who forwarded his comments on it to the Chairman in the following words :

"Submitted If agreed all the six students may be discharged from the roll of Basal High School and they may be allowed to join other schools. Any further complaint against their conduct if they join any school of this district shall be considered for their rustication. For orders." This drew out a long order from the Chairman of the District Council; of which the relevant portions may be reproduced which disclose his reaction and approach to this matter : -- "The report of the. D. I. S. and the note of the S. D. C. have completely surprised me. The D. I. S. has not made any recom mendation and the Secretary has considered it as an ordinary affair. Both have forgotten that it is the greatest offence that a student can commit, and that it can be contagious Both the officials have scrupulously ignored Ghulam Muhammad although he has been mentioned as the greatest culprit of the incident. I find no reason to it except that they meant to shield and protect him. Since it is the gravest offence for a school boy, therefore, I order that Ghulam Muhammad who has with the kindness of the present Headmaster, gone to Jand School, Anees and Masud be rusticated for three years and the others for one year. They will not get entrance in this school again. D. I. S. will hold inquiry against the present Headmaster as to why did he give a school leaving certificate to Ghulam Muhammad." When this note was received by the District Inspector of Schools, Campbellpur, he, by his letters to the Chairman, District Council, Attock, dated the 9th of December 1960, drew his attention to Article 192 of the Punjab Education Code, pointing out that the orders of the Chairman had out stepped the limits of that Article in rusticating the boys for three years, while the maximum period for such rustication could not exceed‑one academic year. This was submitted to the Chairman through the Secretary with the latter's comments endorsing the position set forth in the note of the District Inspector of Schools regarding the duration of the rusti cation. Below this there is an order in the handwriting of the Chairman reading as follows:‑-- Alright. One year for all and should not be issued S. L. C. for ever." Then followed a letter by the District Inspector of Schools, Camp bellpur, to the Inspector of Schools, Peshawar (Memo. No. 11822/E, dated the 19th of December 1960), where after, recounting the events of the misbehaviour of the students, it was stated that the Chairman has "finally decided that the students be rusticated for one year as required under Article 192 of the Punjab Education Code. It was requested that "under the above circumstances formal orders for the rustication of the above‑mentioned students may kindly be issued and the orders of the Chairman district Council may also be confirmed." The Inspector of Schools, Rawalpindi Division, in turn addressed Memo. No. 407/N, dated 14th January 1961, to the Director of Education, Peshawar Region Peshawar, informing him that the students, including the peti tioner's son, Ghulam Muhammad, who had misbehaved and had assaulted the Headmaster, have been rusticated for one academic year, i.e., 1960‑61, under Article 192 of the Punjab Education Code. The background of the events were depicted in the letter in the following Words:‑ "Under the orders of the Chairman, District Council, Camp bellpur, the D. I. S., Campbellpur, conducted an inquiry into the case and found them guilty. His findings have been agreed to by the Chairman, District Council, Campbellpur, and he holds strong views to rusticate the students under the rules. In view of their reports they have been rusticated for one year."

7. We have given our full consideration to this communica tion of the Inspector of Schools to examine the respondent's contention that the order of rustication which formally and finally proceeded from the Inspector of Schools meets the require ments of Article 192 of the Punjab Education Code, and cannot be assailed as an order not made by a competent authority. However, the events relevant to this point which we have already mentioned above lead us to a different conclusion. The Chairman had already passed his orders rusticating the boys for three years in the first instance and then reducing the period to one year on being informed of the limitations in this respect. The Inspector of Schools, in his letter to the Chairman, refers to the strong views of the Chairman to rusticate the students, and his helplessness in refusing to accept his verdict is revealed by the words employed by him in the communication itself. He stated therein that the District Inspector of Schools found the students guilty, that the Chairman held strong views to rusticate the students and that in view of their reports the students have been rusticated for one academic year. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether this order of the Inspector of Schools was genuinely his own order made by him independently of any extraneous pressure to taint his volition or decision in the matter. The answer is definitely "no" because of our opinion that the Inspector of Schools found himself unable to go behind the orders of the Chairman of the District Council rusticating the students, which event was accepted by the Inspector as a fait accompli. When the law requires that an order should be made by a particular authority, the requirements are that that authority must exercise its own independent judgment while giving the decision and not blindly follow a line laid by some other extraneous authority, however higher in rank and status it may be. If an official func tionary who is under a legal obligation to come to his own judgment in a matter allows himself to be completely swayed by someone else and accepts his verdict by towing the dotted line, without giving his own independent thought to the matter, the only safe conclusion to be drawn is that such official functionary; has allowed his will to be substituted by that of the other. The decision thus made is not his decision, having been imposed on him by an extraneous authority which he has not been able to resist. In the circumstances of this case we are constrained to hold that the order in this case was not made by the Inspector of Schools as required by Article 192 of the Education Code, but was in fact imposed on him by the Chairman of the District Council. We are, therefore, unable to uphold it, and issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order as illegal. The University authorities may be informed to announce the result of the petitioner's son which was withheld under the orders of this Court. S.B. Certiorari issued.