| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1993 SLG 1521 1993 SLD 1521 = 1993 PLD 297 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 190, decided on 10th February, 1993.
Presented By: Present. Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Sajjad Ali Shah, J
Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. Roohullah Khan, Registrar and M. Iqbal, Deputy Registrar Agriculture University for
Respondent.
Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 190, decided on 10th February, 1993.
Presented By: Present. Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Sajjad Ali Shah, J
Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. Roohullah Khan, Registrar and M. Iqbal, Deputy Registrar Agriculture University for
Respondent.
SHAH ALAM KHAN --- Petitioner
VERSUS
VICE-CHANCELLOR, AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, . PESHAWAR --- Respondent
Law: Supreme Court Rules, 1980
Section:
Educational Institution--- ---- Involvement of student in politics resulting in disruption of peaceful atmosphere of the University --- Student having been found guilty of violating, the undertaking submitted to the University to the effect that he win not indulge in politics during his studies at the University was ordered to be expelled by the university --- Accused student who was aggrieved on account of action by the University tried in his petition before Supreme Court to explain the accusation against him and stated that University was prepared to forgive and forget --- Explanation of the student was unacceptable to the Court which found the petition of accused student liable to be ejected in limine-- University official who was present in the Court, however, confirmed the statement of the student made in the petition that "Vice- Chancellor" of the University was -prepared to forgive and forget if the student showed his real remorse and sought forgiveness from the Court also --- Accused student, however, with the permission of the Court submitted an undertaking making therein solemn commitment to the University as well as to the Court that he would change himself --- university Official also accepted the said undertaking --- Supreme Court appreciated and also considered it laudable for the Vice- Chancellor to have forgiven the accused student in the larger interest of the latter's future which undoubtedly will benefit, indirectly at least, the Institution --- Supreme Court also observed that though indiscipline must be curbed with very heavy hand but Court was also not unmindful of the parental jurisdiction of the educational institutions; particularly those who occupy the highest position therein --- Punishment, in the parental jurisdiction though was an alimentary component for correction, forgiving and forgetting, as was well known, were equally important components thereof --- Teacher in parental jurisdiction must in all cases of his or his institution's defiance or insult would not resort to a harsh punishment for correction, a reprimand in sharp and incisive language and manner can prove more useful for both sides --…