KARACHI: An investigation into the recent unanimous decision of the Karachi University syndicate to withdraw cases of plagiarism against its three senior teachers shows that the decision was taken not only in complete disregard of past resolutions of the body itself but also of the results of multiple inquiries conducted by the university over the past four years.

KU sources question the validity of the decision given that the teachers had been charged under the ambit of misconduct (and not plagiarism under the Higher Education Commission policy) as mentioned in the university act.

The university was earlier producing evidence and giving arguments against the teachers before inquiry officers appointed by its former vice chancellor.

The individuals who conducted the inquiries, established charges of plagiarism and later endorsed the reports included two retired judges and one serving judge of the Sindh High Court. The latter is a nominee of the chief justice of the SHC on the syndicate.

However, no note of dissent was recorded at the syndicate meetings when the cases were withdrawn. The SHC nominee did not turn up at one meeting while at another he left the session just before a discussion began on the subject. The minutes of the syndicate meeting held in March do not explain why the plagiarism charges were dropped after four years.

They simply state that the syndicate unanimously decided to withdraw cases of plagiarism against Prof Dr Jalaluddin Ahmed Noori, Prof Dr Najma Sultan, (her husband) Prof Dr Saeed Arayen and Zakia Bibi.

The university had taken up the cases in 2008 on a request of the HEC following complaints.

Speaking to Dawn, members of the university syndicate strongly defended the decision and argued that the cases were withdrawn because plagiarism did not fall under the definition of misconduct as mentioned in the university act.

“There is no mention of plagiarism, only of misconduct, in the university act. The act was drafted decades ago and at that time there was no concept of plagiarism in the sense we use the term today,” said KU vice chancellor Prof Dr Qaiser.

Other syndicate members had similar opinions. “I don’t think ‘misconduct’ as mentioned in the act covers plagiarism unless it is defined,” said Dr Haris Shoaib.

The syndicate members also said the HEC policy on plagiarism was applicable only in cases in which the offence was committed after 2007 — the year the policy was announced.

They, however, could not offer any convincing explanation that why the university syndicate would initiate multiple inquiries (as it had been doing) if the university act did not cover plagiarism, nor why the university would be bound to HEC policies when the commission did not have the powers to impose its decisions on public sector universities.

They also contended that they had documents to prove that Prof Noori’s case was wrongfully judged, but were not able to satisfactorily explain why they did not present these documents to the inquiry officers.

“Earlier, we were not part of the syndicate. You should ask those who were part of the body at that time,” said three syndicate members.

Prof Noori (former dean of the faculty of Islamic studies), Prof Arayne (former chairman of the department of chemistry) and his wife, Prof Sultana (former dean of pharmacy), were suspended through a resolution unanimously adopted by the university syndicate in 2009 after an internal inquiry found them guilty of having committed plagiarism in their research papers.

Zakia Bibi, an ad-hoc teacher of the chemistry department, who co-authored the alleged plagiarised research paper of Sultana, and Prof Arayne were immediately sacked.

Plagiarism charges were proved in both cases.

Prof Sultana and her husband retired during the proceedings on account of the prolonged time taken by the university in deciding the case.

Prof Noori was once demoted for having dubious academic credentials. His research papers, including the PhD thesis, had been questioned by many scholars. The latest case was related to his PhD thesis. The first version of this thesis was submitted in 1988 on which he was awarded a PhD in 1989. The thesis was ‘corrected’ after five years in 1994. He was also accused of having given a false date of birth.

Inquiry under misconduct charges

Records of past syndicate meetings reveal that the body had initiated an investigation into these cases under the university act on charges of misconduct under the university act and not on allegations of plagiarism under the HEC policy, as contended by the present syndicate members.

A syndicate meeting held on May 16, 2009 decided, according to the minutes of the session, that a formal inquiry was to be conducted against the professors (Prof Noori, Prof Sultana and Prof Arayne) as per the University of Karachi Act.

Then at a meeting on Jan 23, 2010, the syndicate resolved that “the headline of working papers of clause No 5 (relating to investigation against the said teachers) be read as ‘brief on case of misconduct (plagiarism)’ and, similarly, the second line of paragraph No 2 as ‘suspended on charges of misconduct’.”

When these facts were brought to the notice of the vice chancellor, he said: “I am not aware of these resolutions. Besides, no objection was raised by any member not even by those who were earlier part of the syndicate.”

Referring to the University of Karachi Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Ordinances, 1962, retired Justice Haziq-ul-Khairi, who was appointed inquiry officer to investigate the charges of plagiarism against Prof Noori, writes:

“Misconduct means conduct prejudicial to the good order of service, discipline unbecoming of a university employee and a gentleman.

“Would not the good order of service and discipline of a university be highly prejudiced when its teacher has copied the work of a scholar and has obtained his PhD on this basis? Would it not also amount to fraud on the university, its students and public at large? There is no iota of doubt that ‘plagiarism’ comes within the ambit of misconduct.

“There is nothing either in the University of Karachi Act, 1972, or the University of Karachi Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Ordinance, 1962, or the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002, whereby any decision or direction given by the commission is binding on universities of Pakistan.”

The findings of retired Justice Khairi were endorsed by retired Justice Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui. Stating the position of the university representative and the respondent on the case, he writes:“The respondent submits that the act of plagiarism is neither misconduct nor covered by the definition of misconduct as given in E&D rules and the University Act is silent in this regard.

“The representative of the university submits that copying from the books of other authors for the purpose of obtaining a PhD degree is against all norms and further submits that the respondent has acquired a PhD degree while in service of the university and thus committed misconduct as provided under the E&D rules.”

Referring to retired Justice Haziqul Khairi’s report, retired Justice Siddiqui states that the report has gone unchallenged in the court of law (whose intervention was sought by Prof Noori). The petition, he pointed out, was disposed of.

A ‘confession’ of plagiarism

Retired justice Saleem Akhtar investigated the case involving Prof Arayne and Prof Sultana. Both these teachers, according to the HEC, had submitted a letter of apology to the commission as well as to the original (foreign) author for their ‘mistake’.

“The HEC withdrew their complaint against these teachers when they submitted a letter of apology along with an affidavit last year stating that they had not taken any financial benefit from the research under question,” Munir Ahmed, HEC deputy director of quality assurance, told Dawn.

The measure, Ahmed contended, was in accordance with the revised HEC policy.

Their case was also taken to the ombudsman in 2009 who decided it in favour of the three teachers, including Zakia Bibi, on grounds that the university did not have a plagiarism policy.

This decision, according to sources, came because the university legal team did not contest the case properly and failed to inform the ombudsman that the case was being pursued under charges of misconduct and not plagiarism.

The legal team’s incapacity, they said, was brought to the notice of the syndicate which passed at least three resolutions to express dissatisfaction over its performance.

The university consulted Justice Mohammad Tasnim who gave his legal opinion that the university could not take action against the retired teachers since they were no longer university employees.

In Prof Noori’s case, however, he recommended that the inquiry be conducted as per law and it be presented in the syndicate for action.

In response, the university syndicate at its meeting held on March 3 this year withdrew cases of plagiarism against all teachers, including Zakia Bibi.

Commenting on this development, senior university teachers said that if no action could be taken against retired teachers, the university syndicate should have at least acknowledged their offence and made it known to all public sector universities instead of withdrawing the cases.

As for Prof Noori, the university has allowed him to teach at the department against the legal advice.

“It is beyond all norms of justice that after holding multiple inquiries in which witnesses were produced and the accused were given ample opportunity to prove their innocence, the university syndicate decided to withdraw the cases in a single meeting,” a teacher said.

Members of the KU syndicate include: Prof Dr Majid Mumtaz, Prof Dr Faiyaz Hussain Madni Vaid, Ghazal Khawaja, Justice Mohammad Tasnim, Mumtaz-ur-Rehman (governor’s nominee), MNA Khushbakht Shujaat, MPA Muzaffar Ali Shujra, Haji Hanif Tayyab and Senator Abdul Haseeb Khan.