2021 C L C 2141
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Abdullah Baloch, JJ
ABDUL RAUF RANA ----Petitioner
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF BALOCHISTAN, through Chancellor, Governor House, Quetta and
another ----Respondents
C.P. No.1481 of 2019, decided on 25th November, 2020.
University of Balochistan Act (III of 1996) ---
----Ss. 10 & 11 ---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 10- A---Constitutional petition ---Right
to fair trial--- Cancellation of degree ---Scope ---Petitioner assailed declaration i ssued by
Deputy Controller of Examination (Certificates) on the order of Chancellor whereby his B.A. Annual Examination result and degree were cancelled---Petitioner's result and degree were earlier declared to be genuine but on an appeal of the petitioner 's political opponent under
Ss.10 & 11 of the University of Balochistan Act, 1996, the Chancellor had passed the impugned declaration--- Validity ---Respondents had failed to place on record a single iota of
evidence of proceedings carried out by the Chancel lor to establish that the petitioner had
failed to appear before the appellate authority, which prima facie reflected that whatsoever had been done nothing was carried out in accordance with law ---Petitioner was condemned
unheard (Audi alteram partem) in s heer violation of Art. 10- A of the Constitution ---No
opportunity of fair trial was extended to the petitioner and the manner so adopted for decision of appeal was highly objectionable and had rendered the impugned declaration as illegal, void ab initio and without lawful authority ---No provision of appeal was provided in
Ss.10 & 11 of the University of Balochistan Act, 1996, against the inquiry report in connection with the unfair means of examinations ---Constitutional petition was accepted and
the impugned declaration was set aside.
Muhammad Amir Rana for Petitioner.
Muhammad Akram Shah, Additional A.G. for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 4th November, 2020.
JUDGMENT
ABDULLAH BALOCH, J .---The instant Constitutional Petition is directed against
the declarat ion dated 4th December 2019 issued by the Deputy Controller of Examination
(Certificates) University of Balochistan, Quetta by the order of Chancellor (Governor of
Balochistan) whereby the B.A. Annual Examination, 2004 Result and Degree of the
petitioner has been cancelled, which is reproduced as under:
"UNIVERSITY OF BALOCHISTAN QUETTA.
Office of the Assistant Controller of Examinations (Certificates).
No. 1095/Exams/Cert: Date 4th December, 2019.
DECLARATION,
It is for public information and all concerned, that in pursuance of letter No.SGB/2 -
1/UoB/2019, dated 4th December, 2019 of Governor of Balochistan/ Chancellor and with the approval of the Competent Authority, University of Balochistan, the B.A. Annual Examination, 2004 Result and Degree of Abdul Raouf Rana son of Rana Khursheed Muhammad Having S.No.047390, Roll No.404w, Registration No.1970/UB -2003/A -74686 is hereby cancelled for all purpose and intents due to
impersonation.
Deputy Controller of Examinations
(Certificates)
University of Balochistan, Quetta."
2. Brief facts of the ease are that the petitioner is elected member of Punjab Provincial
Assembly PP -239 and belongs to Pakistan Muslim League (N) and also District President in
Bahawalnagar and he was also contesting elections from the said constituency for last so many years and his political rival filed an application in 2008 with the Vice Chancellor, University of Balochistan; wherein called in question the B.A. result of the petitioner that the same was obtained by unfair means (hereinafter referred as "UFM") accordingly the University authorities conducted enquiry through UFM Enquiry Committee after thorough probe into the matter the UFM Committee reached to the conclusion that they are unable to prove the Degree of the petitioner as fake, however, found some flaws in the record of
examination Branch, vide inquiry report dated 17th May 2008 and thereafter another committee was constituted by the Vice Chancellor and this committee had recommended cancellation of his degree, vide report dated 17th May 2008, again the matter was reported to
the Vice Chancellor and the worthy Vice Chancellor constituted a one man committee of Professor Dr. Ghayas -ud-Din Siddiqui and he also declared the result of the petitioner as
fake, vide report dated 21st June 2010. Accordingly the worthy Vice Chancellor constituted another high level committee for further probe into the matter which was also decided in favour of the petitioner, vide its report dated 26th September 2011 and 29th August 2015. It is worth to mention here that during the course of earlier report of committee, wherein the
committee recommended for cancellation of degree of the petitioner, the same was challenged by the petitioner by means of filing Constitutional Petition No.466 of 2010 and the said petition was remained pending before this Court till 3rd September 2015 and after the decision of the committee dated 29th August 2015 as referred above, the petition was
withdrawn by the petitioner on 3rd September 2015 in presence of learned counsel for the
parties and no one has raised any objection, thus the matter attained the finality. However, being aggrieved from the report of above committee dated 29th August 2015, the complainant namely Rao Asif Ejaz filed an appeal under sections 10 and 11 of the University of Balochistan Act, 1996 before the worthy Chancellor (Governor of Balochistan) on 16th
September 2015, but surprisingly without issuing notice to the petitioner, after considerable
long time without any proper written decision, the de gree of the petitioner was cancelled
through impugned declaration dated 4th December 2019. Being aggrieved the petitioner
preferred the instant Constitutional Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned declaration is issued
without lawful authority behind the back of petitioner; that neither any notice of appeal issued to the petitioner nor he was provided an opportunity of hearing to defend his ease, thus he has condemned un- heard; that whatsoever has been happened in the proceedings of
appeal nothing has been brought on record whether any judgment or decision passed in written by the Chancellor of the University of Balochistan to ascertain the factual position; that proceedings carried out by the Chancellor are violative of University Act and Rules,
which are not sustainable; that high level committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor,
submitted their report of inquiry in favour of the petitioner and no UFM was found at the part
of petitioner; that the political rival of th e petitioner while failing to compete the petitioner
on political scenario has managed a conspiracy to damage the reputation of the petitioner by means of filing false and frivolous complaint against the petitioner; that the University authorities have fai led to properly appreciate the findings of the committee dated 29th
August 2015 to its true prospective, thus in a haphazard manner cancelled the lawful degree of the petitioner.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the arguments
so advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the impugned declaration passed by the worthy Chancellor after thorough perusal of the record and passed on the recommendation of inquiry committees and came to the right concl usion that the
petitioner has obtained his degree through UFM. He himself did not appear in two compart papers, which is apparent from the Supplementary Examination form submitted on behalf of petitioner by another person affixing his photographs, which pr ima facie reflects that the
petitioner managed to obtain the degree through UFM, thus on the basis whereof his result was cancelled.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely
with their valuable assistance, which reveals that the petitioner belongs to Bahawalnagar
district of Punjab and appeared in BA Annual Examination under Roll No.404 of Session 2004 held by the University of Balochistan and meanwhile when the petitioner was participating in general elections of 2008 a person namely Rao Asif Ejez son of Ejaz Ali
Khan of Bahawalnagar filed an application on 14th March 2008 with the Vice Chancellor of University of Balochistan for verification of BA degree and admission forms of the petitioner, it would appropriate to reproduce the contents of the application as under:
6. On receipt of said application, the matter was referred to the Controller Examination
and the same was marked to Additional Controller Examination on 20th March 2008 to
investigate and put up the report. After investigation the then Additional Controller Examination had come to conclusion that the petitioner appeared in BA Annual Examination, 2003 from University of Balochistan and failed in two Subjects. Later he again tried. to reappear in (S upplementary) Examination, 2004, but actually this time he did not appear in
person as per available record of conduct, rather some other person appeared in his place, and passed the BA Examination. He also recommended for taking action against the petitio ner, vide report dated 1st April 2008 and same was submitted to Controller
Examination. Subsequently on 16th April 2008 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Controller Examinations (Conduct) University of Balochistan and he was directed to reply the show cause notice up to 22nd April 2008 and to appear before the committee on 23rd April 2008 after this process the committee submitted its recommendations, vide report dated 17th May 2008, which is reproduced as under:
"Recommendations On the evidences provided to the Committee by the Examination
Branch University of Balochistan, the committee is unable to prove the degree of Mr. Rana Abdul Rauf Fake. However, the committee found flaws (explained in the finding) in record
provided by the Examination Branch of the Balochistan University. To avoid such incidents
in future, it is therefore, recommended to have a thorough enquiry about his case and punish
the involved persons. The competent authorities may take any further action according to the
University rules, if desired."
7. Pursuant to the import of above committee the Secretary Unfairmeans/Enquiry
Committee issued a letter No.941 -45/Exams/Cond: dated 27th May 2008, wherein
particularly endorsed the recommendation of the committee as under:
"Subject:- RECOMMENDATION / DECISION OF ENQUIRY / UNFAIRMEANS
COMMITTEE
The recommendation decision of the Unfairmeans / Enquiry Committee, University of Balochistan, Quetta in its meetings held on 17th May 2008 duly approved by the Competent Authorit y is reproduced below for your information: -
Charge
levelled Recommendation Decision of the Unfairmeans Committee
Impersonation As per finding of the Committee and the Competent
Authority the fake nature of your degree as claimed by the
complainant has not been proved.
Secretary
Unfairmeans/Enquiry Committee
University of Balochistan
Quetta"
8. Since conflicting views of the committees arrived on surface, the worthy Vice
Chancellor referred the matter to Prof. Dr. Gheyas -ud-Din Siddiqui, Dean, Faculty of Social
Sciences who after thorough inquiry submitted his report on 21st June 2010 with the recommendations for cancellation of degree of petitioner and imposing Rupees One Million as fine. Being aggrieved the petiti oner assailed the recommendations of one man committee
and simultaneously filed the CP No.466 of 2010 before this Court as well as before the Vice Chancellor. During pendency of the above CP the Vice Chancellor of University of Balochistan was pleased to c onstitute a high level committee on the representation of
petitioner against the recommendations of Prof. Dr. Gheyas ud Din Siddiqui. The high level committee after going through the record and report submitted by Prof. Dr. Gheyas ud Din Siddiqui came to c onclusion that the report so submitted by Prof. Dr. Gheyas ud Din
Siddiqui is fake one and upheld the decision of UFM Committee dated 17th May 2008 relevant portion of findings of the committee dated 26th September 2011 is reproduced as under:
2. It is pr oved that the decision of U.E.M committee regarding not finding guilty to
Rana Abdul Rauf vide letter number 941- 45/exam/conduct dated 27 -05-2008 is final
decision and the report given by Prof. Gehyeyas -ud-Din Siddiqui is fake. So the
decision of U.F.M committee dated 17 -05-2008 upheld in favour of Rana Abdul Raul:
Whereas, the recommendation of Prof Gehyas -ud-Din Siddiqui is declared null and
void contrary to the material on record as well as against the U.M.E. Rules."
9. After declaration of inquiry rep ort of Prof. Dr. Gheyas ud Din Siddiqui as fake one,
the worthy Vice Chancellor constituted another high level committee and the said committee through their report dated 29th August 2015 recommended as under:
"Recommendation
Keeping in view the above fac ts the record provided to committee and after going
through the minutely we are unable to prove the degree of Mr. Abdul Rauf Rana to be
a fake one, therefore the degree of Abdul Rauf Rana is Genuine issued by the University authorities.
Report is submitte d for your consideration and approval please."
Wherein found the degree of the petitioner as genuine. Accordingly on the basis of
above recommendations of the high level committee, the petitioner placed the same before this Court in C.P. No.466 of 2010 and being satisfied withdrawn the same on 3rd September 2015 in presence of learned counsel for the parties as well as counsel for the complainant
Rao Asif Ejaz, who did not raise any objection over the withdrawal of petition, wherein the
grievance of the pe titioner has been redressed, for convenience the order dated 3rd
September 2015 passed by this Court is reproduced as under:
"ORDER Syed Ayaz Zahoor, Advocate for petitioner.
03.09.2015 Messrs H. Shakil Ahmed and Mohibullah Shah, Advocates for respondent
No.5.
Mr. Abdul Ghani Mashwani, Advocate for University.
=========================
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the Bachelor Degree of the petitioner
has been declared as genuine by the respondent University and his grievance has been
redressed; that he has been instructed to withdraw the petition having borne fruit.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 stated that he reserves his right to approach the appropriate forum/avail the remedy for redressed of his grievance in respect of the
decision made by the respondent University.
The petition having not been pressed is dismissed as withdrawn.
JUDGE
JUDGE"
10. From bare reading of this order made it clear that the learned counsel for the
complainant has raised no objection for withdrawal of petition, but however, in a concealing manner the complainant on 16th September 2015 filed an appeal before the worthy Chan cellor under sections 10 and 11 of the University of Balochistan Act, 1996 against the
decision of the Syndicate pronounced through minutes of committee dated 29th August 2015, we have observed that since long pendency of above appeal no notice was issued to the
petitioner to defend his case and all of sudden in a concealing manner the impugned declaration dated 4th December 2019 was issued by the Deputy Controller Examination
(Certificates), whereby cancelled the degree of the petitioner.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents despite our observations has failed to place
on record the original order or its copy passed by the worthy Chancellor to ascertain the
factual position on the basis whereof the degree of the petitioner was directed to be cancelled, even otherwise, the respondents have failed to place on record a single iota of evidence of proceedings carried out by the Chancellor to establish that the petitioner had failed to appear before appellate authority, which prima -fade reflects that whatso ever has
been done nothing had been carried out in accordance with the law. Resultantly, the petitioner was condemned unheard (Audi alteram partem) in sheer violation of Article 10- A
of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; wherein rights of every citizen are
protected for fair trial, but unfortunately we have observed that no opportunity of fair trial was extended to the petitioner and the manner so adopted for decision of appeal is highly objectionable and rendered the impugned declarati on as illegal, void ab initio and without
lawful authority.
12. Besides we have observed that there is no provision of appeal provided under sections
10 and 11 of the University of Balochistan Act, 1996 against the inquiry report in connection with the UFM of examinations for ready reference the provisions of Sections 10 and 11 of
the Act are reproduced as under:
"Chancellor.
10. (1) The Governor of Balochistan shall be the Chancellor of the
University. (2) The Chancellor or his nominee shall preside at the
convocation of the University and the meetings of the Senate. (2) If the Chancellor is satisfied that the proceedings of nay [sic} Authority are not in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the statutes, the Regulations, or the Rules, he may, after calling upon such Authority to show -cause as to why such proceedings should not be annulled, by
order in writing, annul the proceedings. (4) Every proposal of confer an honorary degree shall be subject to conformation by the Chancellor. (5) The Chancellor shall have the power to assent to such Rules and
Regulations as are required to be submitted to him by the Senate or with-hold assent or refer them back to the Senate for reconsideration.
(6) The Chancellor may remove any person from the membership of any Authority if such person: - (i) has become of unsound mind; or (ii)
has been incapacitated to function as member of such Authority; or (iii) has been convicted by a court of law or an offense involving moral turpitude. (iv) has failed to attend three consec utive meetings of
the authority; or (v) has accepted any assignment which involves his absence from the University for a continuous period of six months or more: Provided that no order under this sub- section shall be passed
unless the person w be affected thereby is afforded an opportunity of
being heard. (vi) the Chancellor may, of his own motion or otherwise, call for to examine the record of any proceedings in which an order has been passed by any Authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to th e correctness, legality or propriety of any finding or order and
may pass such orders as he may deem fit: Provided that no order
under this subsection shall be passed unless the person to be affected
thereby is afforded an opportunity of being heard. (7) The Chancellor
shall have the power to appoint the Dean of each Faculty on the
recommendations of the Vice Chancellor from amongst the Professors
in the Faculty.
Visitation
11. (1) The Chancellor may cause any inspection or inquiry to be made in
respect of any matter connected with the affairs of the University, and shall, from time to time, appoint such person or persons as he may deem fit for the purpose of carrying out inspection or holding enquiry in respect of - (i) the University, its buildin gs, laboratories, libraries
museums, workshops and equipment; (ii) any institution, college or hostel maintained or recognized by, or affiliated to the University; (iii) the teaching and other work conducted by the University; and (iv) the conduct of exami nation held by the University. (2) The Chancellor
shall, in every such case as aforesaid, give notice to the Syndicate of his intention to cause an inspection Or inquiry to be made under subsection (1) and the Syndicate shall be entitled to be represented thereat. (3) The Chancellor shall communicate to the Syndicate his view with regard to the results of such inspection or inquiry and shall after ascertaining the views thereon of the Syndicate advise the Syndicate on the action to be taken. (4) The Syndica te shall
communicate to the Chancellor such action, if any, as has been taken or may be proposed to be taken upon the results of the inspection or inquiry. Such communication shall be submitted to the Chancellor or within such time as may be specified by t he Chancellor. (5) Where the
Syndicate does not, within a specified time take action to the satisfaction of the Chancellor, the Chancellor may, after considering any explanation furnished or representation made by the Syndicate issue such directions as he thinks fit, and the Vice Chancellor shall
comply with such direction as if the same was decision of the
concerned authority."
13. Bare reading of above provisions of Sections 10 and 11 of ibid Act, made it clear that
whatsoever has been carried out in process of impugned order is result of miscarriage of justice; thus, we are of the firm view that the impugned declaration dated 4th December 2019 issued by the respondents is illegal, without lawful authority and void ab- initio, while
accepting the petition, the impugned declaration dated 4th December 2019 is accordingly declared as null and void.
Above are the reasons of our short order dated 4th November 2020.
SA/32/Bal. Petition accepted.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.