April 03, 2007	Tuesday	Rabi-ul-Awwal 14, 1428

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

LAHORE, April 2: The Punjab University Syndicate on Monday confirmed plagiarism by five faculty members of the Centre for High Energy Physics (CHEP) but let the plagiarists off the hook by giving them mild punishments.

The higher Education Commission had recommended dismissals in the case.

The syndicate decided to ask CHEP director Prof Dr Fazal-i-Aleem to relinquish the directorship of the centre and issue warning/censure to lecturers Maqsood Ahmad, Rasheed Ahmad, Sohail Afzal Tahir and Alam Saeed, besides withholding their two annual increments.

Prof Aleem’s tenure as CHEP director had already ended in October last and he was allowed to carry on till further orders. He will however continue to serve as Director-General of the School of Physical Sciences, Punjab University.

The syndicate, which met under the chairmanship of vice-chancellor Arshad Mahmood, took the decisions on the basis of the 32-page final inquiry report submitted by the inquiry committee headed by PU faculty of law dean and Law College principal Prof Dr Dil Muhammad Malik. The preliminary report submitted by another inquiry committee led by PU faculty of life sciences dean Prof Dr Shahida Husnain had also confirmed plagiarism.

The syndicate reiterated its commitment that plagiarism would not be tolerated in academic and research writings in the university.

Giving rationale behind the mild punishments, PU registrar Prof Dr Naeem Khan told Dawn that the syndicate had concluded that neither PU Calendar nor any government legislation had any prescribed penalty. “In the absence of proper terms of references and in the absence of any specific legislation on the issue, it was very difficult for the committee to fix the responsibility and suggest penalties, which should satisfy a court of law,” he claimed.

Quoting the syndicate, the registrar said the act of CHEP faculty members was first of its nature in the history of Pakistan. “Therefore, the syndicate decision would serve as a landmark case relating to ethical writing practices and research,” he quoted the meeting as having said.

When asked that Higher Education Commission chairman Prof Dr Attaur Rehman had written a letter to PU vice-chancellor Arshad Mahmood and asked him to dismiss those found guilty in the case, the registrar said the varsity syndicate was not bound to follow the “wish-list of the HEC chairman.”

Prof Khan said the syndicate had found CHEP’s director Prof Dr Fazal-i-Aleem a careless head and supervisor in the plagiarism case in question, though he himself was not involved in plagiarism. “The syndicate also said that all copying of foreign research papers was not found as plagiarism,” Khan said.

According to him, the syndicate took a lenient view in the case of four young lecturers — Maqsood Ahmad, Rasheed Ahmad, Sohail Afzal Tahir and Alam Saeed - after considering their career (having highest impact factor without any complaint of plagiarism against them during 2002 to 2007) and publication of their 173 articles in international journals. It decided to issue them warning/censure besides withholding their two annual increments.

The registrar said since these researchers had no clear-cut distinction between permissible copying and plagiarism and awareness on the issue, the syndicate said the young faculty members should be given the benefit of doubt. “The syndicate decided not to deprive the Punjab University of these talented and budding physicists,” he said.

In order to discourage the cut and paste culture and include this guideline in research methodology, the syndicate issued directions to all deans and heads of departments to include guidelines on plagiarism in PhD courses. The syndicate also asked Prof Dr Dil Muhammad Malik to formulate guidelines for the purpose.

The syndicate said that necessary legislation would be done to effectively check plagiarism and honour copyright and intellectual property rights.

Registrar Prof Khan told Dawn the PU would also create deterrence against such practices through advocacy. He said the university would print pamphlets about the menace of plagiarism and circulate them among M.Phil and PhD students, researchers and faculty members. After the awareness campaign, the registrar said, the university would be in a position to say that all faculty members, researchers and students stood sufficiently warned against committing plagiarism. “The plagiarism is a new menace,” he said.

INQUIRY COMMITTEE FINDINGS: The findings submitted by the inquiry committee to the syndicate say: “The members of inquiry committee are quite clear about the fact that there has been copying by the accused teachers. They, too, have generally not denied copying, but they have denied plagiarism saying that all copying is not plagiarism; plagiarism means impermissible copying. But it is not possible to determine whether the acts of the said teachers are permissible or culpable, in the absence of legal parameters/guidelines. It would only be possible when the issues highlighted earlier are properly settled. Therefore, we leave it to the competent authority to deal with the matter in the light of law and facts of the case”.

RECOMMENDATIONS: The inquiry committee recommended that the issues raised by it should be settled at the appropriate level in accordance with law, an exercise, which will be fairly complex and difficult.

It said the university should develop sound policy guidelines and implement them through Statutes/Regulations/Code of Conduct.

The committee recommended that after the policy issues are settled, the case may be decided, preferably, by an independent entity acceptable to the teachers accused of plagiarism as well as the complainant.

The committee also said that the aggrieved persons (the persons whose research papers were plagiarized) could approach the appropriate court for adjudication.

The syndicate, while discussing a law point whether the inquiry report should go to the Punjab Governor/Chancellor as competent authority, reiterated that since the syndicate was the appointing authority of the faculty members, therefore, it was the competent authority under the Punjab Removal from Service Ordinance 2000-2001 to award penalty, which it found appropriate.

Observing that the plagiarism case had brought a bad name to the Punjab University, the syndicate condemned the faculty members who were involved in plagiarism as well as those who propagated this case at home and abroad.