BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN through Vice-Chancellor and another vs IMRAN ALI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Bahauddin Zakariya University against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which allowed a writ petition filed by the respondent student. The respondent had appeared in an examination, but his answer-sheet went missing, leading the university's Disciplinary Committee to disqualify him for three years. His departmental appeal was also rejected by the Vice-Chancellor. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the university's disciplinary action. The Supreme Court held that the evidence produced by the petitioners themselves pointed toward the invigilator being responsible for the missing answer book, rendering the High Court's interference proper and legally sound. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming that findings of domestic tribunals can be scrutinized when evidence fails to support the charge.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the findings of a university disciplinary committee regarding a missing answer-sheet?
- Does a university's order of disqualification warrant interference when evidence suggests fault on the part of the invigilator rather than the student?
- When is a case considered unfit for the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The respondent Imran Ali appeared in English Paper "B", B.A. 2nd Annual Examination, 2003 held on 20-12-2003. The answer-sheet was found missing. Therefore, he was proceeded against by the Disciplinary, Committee and was disqualified for three years or six chances vide order, dated 25-3-2004 till 1st Annual Examination of 2006. His appeal was also turned down by the Vice-Chancellor of Bahaud Din Zakaryya University, Multan vide order, dated 8- 5-2004/9-6-2004. Therefore, the respondent filed Writ Petition No,6503 of 2004 which was allowed by a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench vide impugned judgment, dated 22-3-2006.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent having received the answer book did not hand over the same to the Invigilator and smuggled it out. Therefore, findings recorded by the Disciplinary Committee could not be substituted by the High Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and have also perused the available record with his assistance.
4. We find that the witnesses produced by the petitioners themselves showed that it was Invigilator Bilal Ahmad Khan who might be responsible for missing answering book of the respondent.
Therefore, the High Court was quite justified in allowing the writ petition. In our view, the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any defect or legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. Even otherwise, this is not a fit and proper case for grant of leave to appeal.
' For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.