PESHAWAR, April 6: The Peshawar High Court on Wednesday directed the University of Peshawar not to take any action against an assistant professor till the university syndicate decides about his appeal against his suspension. A two-member bench comprising Chief Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel referred the writ petition filed by Muhammad Zubair to the syndicate directing that the same should be treated as an appeal under section 39 of the University of Peshawar Act, 1974.

The petitioner alleged that he was issued a show cause notice and an inquiry was launched on March 17 to assess the entire process of admission till declaration of final result of his LLM degree, which was based on mala fide intentions as he had charged the university’s Vice-Chancellor, Dr Azmat Hayat, of plagiarism and approached the Higher Education Commission (HEC) and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa governor in this regard.

Advocate Abdul Lateef Yousafzai appeared for the petitioner and contended that he had an excellent academic record and was also nominated for a prestigious Fulbright scholarship.

He argued that the action of the vice-chancellor regarding the petitioner was mala fide and was an excess of his jurisdiction under the University of Peshawar Act.

Mr Yousafzai pointed out that on March 17 a news item appeared in an English daily regarding the alleged plagiarism by the vice-chancellor in his PhD thesis and on the same day the VC ordered an inquiry regarding the LLM degree of the petitioner.

He stated that the inquiry committee in its findings came up with two lame excuses: Firstly, it was pointed out that the petitioner was an employee at the university and had not obtained NOC for taking admission in LLM; and secondly, the petitioner had not submitted his thesis to the concerned director of the Centre for Studies in Law and Democracy (CSLD).

The counsel argued that under the efficiency and disciplinary statutes of the university the competent authority to take action against officials of BPS-16 and above was the syndicate and not the vice-chancellor.

He added that in the instant case the VC overstepped his powers by ordering an inquiry against the petitioner.

The bench observed that instead of directly moving the high court, the petitioner had the remedy available to file an appeal before the syndicate under section 39 of the said act.

The counsel requested the court that the present petition may be referred to the syndicate to be treated as an appeal and till that time no adverse action may be taken against the petitioner.

It merits a mention that the administration had also ordered another inquiry against the petitioner charging him of ‘gross misconduct’ as he had been taking part in political activities and making objectionable speeches.