|
SHC extends stay against rustication of MBBS student
Karachi, Sep 1: A division bench of the Sindh High Court (SHC), comprising
Justice Musheer Alam and Justice Faisal Arab, on Friday extended stay against
the rustication order of a student from Dow University of Health Sciences for
four weeks.
Muhammad Usman Tariq, MBBS final year student of Dow Medical
College (DMC) was rusticated for one year on July 21 this year under the
"Student Conduct Rule" for participating in a protest against the raise in
examination fees. The rustication memorandum issued by the principal of DMC was
challenged in the SHC, which granted a stay against its operation on August 15,
directing the university administration to allow the petitioner take his classes
and appear in exams till the next order.
The applicant's counsel informed
the court on Friday that despite the stay order the DUHS issued a show cause
notice to Usman Tariq on August 18. He submitted that no show cause could be
issued until the instant petition was withdrawn.
Afsar Abdi advocate,
appearing for the DUHS, stated that the show cause notice was rendered in view
of court direction to conduct inquiry against the applicant. Apparently, such
course was adopted to cut controversies and avoid multiplicity of
proceedings.
The division bench, after hearing arguments, directed the
petitioner to file a reply of the show cause notice within one week and appear
before the disciplinary committee. It also directed the committee to complete
the inquiry and place its report before the court within two weeks. The matter
would now be taken up after four weeks.
The DUHS has constituted a
five-member committee comprising Justice (retd) Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqui, Prof.
Abdul Ghaffar Billo, Prof. Ghaffar Memon, Prof. Nargis Soomro and Dr Ejazul
Haque to conduct an inquiry against Usman Tariq.
The show cause notice
issued to the applicant on August 18 by Principal DMC has charged that Usman
Tariq unlawfully entered in a lecture hall during an in-session class, snatched
the mike and started addressing students. "Your act clearly amounts to
misconduct of students rule," it charged.
In his reply the applicant
submitted that he could not answer the notice as the matter was subjudice and
any reply could be considered as contempt of court. The news
|
