Pakistan Case Law
1982 SCMR 1084

MASOOD PERVAIZ vs THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1982 SCMR 1084
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 160-8 of 1981
Date1982-10-13
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Zaffar Hussain
Authored byMuhammad Afzal Zullah
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which declined to interfere in its writ jurisdiction with a disciplinary action taken by the University of the Punjab against the petitioner for attempting to cheat by replacing inner sheets of official answer books in the First Professional M.B.B.S. Examination 1979. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary finding was based on 'no evidence' and whether the principle of natural justice regarding opportunity of hearing was violated. The Supreme Court held that the discovery of substituted sheets in the petitioner's answer book raised a strong presumption against him, and the sufficiency of material for a finding of fact falls within the exclusive domain of the university authorities. Furthermore, the court held that personal hearing was granted, a written explanation was submitted, and material could lawfully be collected in the petitioner's absence without contravening established legal precedents. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the High Court can interfere in its writ jurisdiction with a disciplinary action taken by a university authority for examination malpractice?
  • Does the discovery of substituted answer sheets inside a candidate's answer book raise a strong presumption of guilt?
  • Is it mandatory for disciplinary material in a university inquiry to be collected strictly in the presence of the candidate?
writ jurisdictiondisciplinary actionuniversity examinationcheatingnatural justiceno evidence

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 6-7-1981 of the Lahore High Court whereby it refused to interfere in its writ jurisdiction with a disciplinary action, by the respondent against the petitioner, for having attempted to cheet by replacing the inner sheets of official answer books, in the First Professional M.B.B.S. Examina--tion 1979 (held in 1980).

2. It is not denied that the sheets in dispute are not in the handwriting of the petitioner and further that they were placed into the original answer books by substituting the genuine sheets. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, contended that there was no evidence as required under para. 14 of the relevant Regulations that it was by a deliberate act of the petitioner.

3. It cannot be said that if the petitioner did it, there was no mens rea. He must have done it deliberately. The real question, however, is whether it was a case of no evidence.

4. The sheets in question were found in the answer book of the petitioner. This raised a strong presumption against him, the quantum of material exclusive field of the authorities) for reaching a finding of fact is within the exclusive concerned. The High Court rightly refused to interfere in this behalf.

5. Learned counsel also argued that the incriminating material was no collected in presence of the petitioner and that be was not afforded fame opportunity of hearing. It is not denied that he was given personal bearing. A written explanation was also submitted by him. Material could be collected in his absence also. None of the rules set out in Ahmad and 3 others v. University of Engineering and Technology (PLD1981SC464) has been contravened. This petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.

Cited by 14 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.