CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, LAHORE
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had accepted a respondent's writ petition challenging an order of disqualification passed by the Discipline Committee of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. The respondent had been disqualified from appearing in three examinations for alleged copying. The High Court had set aside the Board's order primarily because the Board failed to file a written statement in response to the writ petition, citing the theft of relevant files. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court erred in declaring the Discipline Committee's order to be without lawful authority solely on the assumption that the domestic tribunal failed to act judicially, despite the Board's contention that sufficient material existed to demonstrate that a show-cause notice had been served and a proper inquiry conducted. The Court also sought to examine whether the writ petition was barred by laches. Pending the final decision of the appeal, the Supreme Court suspended the operation of the High Court's impugned order.
- Can a High Court declare an order of a domestic tribunal to be without lawful authority solely because a written statement was not filed?
- Does the failure of a domestic tribunal to file a written statement in a writ petition automatically imply that it did not act judicially?
- Whether a writ petition challenging a disciplinary action by an educational board is barred by laches?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This petition is directed against the judg--ment of the Lahore High Court, dated 30-1-1982, accepting respondent's writ petition.
2. The facts forming the background of the case are, briefly, Sh. Fawad Latif (respondent herein) was charged of copying during the Inter--mediate Examination held under the suspices of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, 'Lahore, in Autman of 1980. The Discipline Committee of the Board, passed an order of his disqualification from appearing at three examinations arid the Jury of Appeal rejected his appeal. He then challenged this order through a writ petition which was accepted by the High Court vide the impugned order mainly on the ground that the written statement had not been filed on behalf of the Board in reply to the allegations made in the writ petition. The reason given by the Board for not filing the written statement in the High Court was that about 40 files relating to disciplinary actions against the students had been stolen, but it is submitted that sufficient material was available on the record to show that show- cause notice had, in fact, been served and due inquiry held.
3. Leave is granted to consider, inter alia, whether in the circum-' stances of this case, the High Court could have declared the order of the) Discipline Committee without lawful authority on the assumption that the,, Domestic Tribunal had not acted judicially in deciding the matter relating' to the discipline in the institution, and secondly whether the writ petition) was not barred by )aches.
Impugned order shall remain suspended till final decision of the appeal.