Anti-Plagiarism Policy

Our Anti-Plagiarism Policy

1. Preamble

The Higher Education Commission introduced the first Plagiarism Policy in 2007 intending to protect, respect, credit, and recognize the original research and scholarly publications and curb the menace of plagiarism through systemic improvements based on process, development, and punitive actions besides safeguarding against the bogus or false complaints. Since its launch in 2007, a few challenges and concerns were raised about the policy related in general to the interpretation of plagiarism (definitions) across various disciplines, clarity of roles and responsibilities of HEIs vis-à-vis HEC, lack of appeal process, subjective determination of penalties and incomplete articulation of processes of complaints. Given the circumstances, it became essential to review and improve the HEC Plagiarism Policy to
incorporate various forms and illustrations in which plagiarism exhibits itself, present a methodology of investigation, cater for punitive action proportional to the extent of the offence, address the issue of false or spurious complaints, institute appellate process, etc. Efficiency & Discipline Rules and the Service Statutes of research institutions and organizations.

The revised Anti-Plagiarism Policy reflects several improvements in terms of principles of the policy, definitions, and types of plagiarism, clear complaint lodging procedure, the composition of the University Anti-Plagiarism Standing Committee, grounds and penalties of
plagiarism, the constitution of National Plagiarism Standing Committee at HEC, appellate process, etc.

Introducing this policy, the Commission firmly believes that its implementation would significantly enhance academic integrity, thereby the overall quality of the higher education system.

2. The HEC’s Mandate to Prevent Plagiarism

The Higher Education Commission (HEC) Ordinance of 2002, under section 10(a), demands that the Commission needs to develop guidelines or policies for improving and promoting quality and ethical research culture. The relevant section of the Ordinance is reproduced below:

Section 10 (a) : Formulate policies, guiding principles, and priorities for higher education institutions for the promotion of socio-economic development of the country.

Given the quoted section, the HEC tasked the Experts Committee on June 29, 2021, to review and revise the Anti-Plagiarism Policy (HEC Plagiarism Policy 2007). This revised Policy intends to uphold the autonomy and responsibility of HEIs/DAIs to ensure the authenticity of ethical research and eliminate the scourge of plagiarism. Anti-plagiarism is just one component of the broader policy framework that deals with Academic Dishonesty and Research Ethics (Gift authorship, Dispute of authorship, Citation Racketeering, etc.). The policy review has to be a dynamic process, due to the evolving National and International ground realities. It is recommended that the Anti-Plagiarism Policy be reviewed, at least once every three to five years, to reflect upon, and respond to, emerging developments.

3. Principles of the Policy

The Policy is based on the following general principles:

Awareness for Preventing Plagiarism: Universities and faculty members should arrange regular capacity-building activities, within each calendar year, to create awareness about avoiding plagiarism in its various forms.
Following Research Ethics: Universities, faculty, students, and staff should follow research ethics to avoid plagiarism in their academic and research contributions.
Respecting Intellectual Contribution: Researchers/Scholars and Faculty members should acknowledge other researchers’ intellectual work, as per the norms of their respective disciplines.
Devising Process for Probing Plagiarism: Plagiarism is considered a serious matter, and there is a need to curb this menace through proper, detailed, and defined processes.

4. Definition of Plagiarism

The online Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines the term Plagiarism as follows:
“The practice of copying another person’s ideas, words or work and pretending that they are your own.”

The online Merriam-Webster dictionary’s definition of Plagiarism is as follows:
“To steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s one: use (another’s production) without crediting the source”

Furthermore, the following acts fall within the scope and definition of plagiarism:

To steal and present the ideas or words of others as one’s own
To use another person’s production, without citing and crediting the source
To commit literary theft
To present as a new and original idea or product derived from an existing scholarly source.
Turning in someone else’s work as one’s own
Copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
Failing to put a quote or quotation marks, when copying the exact language from a source
Giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
Changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
Copying a bulk of words or ideas from other references and including them in your work, whether you give credit or not.

The following activities are prevalent in today’s technology-driven society. Despite their everyday use, they still count as academic cheating and plagiarism if done without permission from the original artists/creators.

Copying media (especially images) from other websites to paste them into your work or websites.
Making a video using footage from others’ videos or copyrighted art and music as part of a soundtrack.
Performing another person’s copyrighted music (i.e., playing a cover) without permission.
Composing a piece of music which is heavily borrowed from another composition.

Indeed, some media can create challenging situations to determine if the copyrights of a work are being violated. For example:

A photograph or scan of a copyrighted image (using a picture of a book cover to represent that book on one’s website)
Recording audio or video in which copyrighted music or video is playing in the background.
Re-creating a visual work in the same medium. (Shooting a photograph that uses the same composition and subject matter as someone else’s photograph)
Re-creating a graphic work in a different medium (making a painting closely resembling another person’s photo without permission).
Re-mixing or altering copyrighted images, videos, audio, or other artistic expressions.
Use of ChatGPT and similar machine-generated text.

The document also provides a reference for further guidance on avoiding unauthorized use of copyrighted material:

For determining/avoiding unauthorized use of somebody else’s copyrighted material, guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) are available at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines

5. Common Types of Plagiarism

Students Collusion: Working with other students on an assignment meant for individual assessment.
Word-for-Word Plagiarism: Copying and pasting content without proper attribution/ reference.
Self-Plagiarism: Reusing one’s previously published or submitted work without proper attribution.
Mosaic Plagiarism: Weaving phrases and text from several sources into one’s work. Adjusting sentences without quotation marks or attribution.
Software-based Text Modification: Taking content written by another person and running it through a software tool (text spinner, translation engine) to evade plagiarism detection.
Contract Cheating: Engaging a third party (for a fee, for free or in-kind compensation) to complete an assignment and representing that as one’s work, if proven.
Inadvertent Plagiarism: Forgetting to properly cite or quote a source or unintentional paraphrasing or violation of stylistic norms.
Paraphrase Plagiarism: Rephrasing a source’s ideas without proper attribution.
Computer Code Plagiarism: Copying or adapting source code without permission from, and attribution to, the original creator.
Data Plagiarism: Falsifying or fabricating data or improperly appropriating someone else’s work, putting a researcher, institution, or publisher’s reputation in jeopardy.
Manual Text Modification: Manipulating text with the intention of misleading the plagiarism detection software.
Source-based Plagiarism: Providing inaccurate or incomplete information about sources which do not exist.

6. Aims of the Policy

This Policy seeks to create awareness about avoiding all kinds of plagiarism among the stakeholders i.e., students, mentors/supervisors, researchers, faculty members, and staff of universities or Degree Awarding Institutions (DAIs), constituent colleges, affiliated colleges, and affiliated R&D institutes/organizations. It addresses a central problem regarding academic dishonesty and the processes involved in probing any complaint of plagiarism.

7. Applicability

The Policy applies to students, employees of universities/organizations, faculty members, researchers, and staff of all Universities and DAIs of Pakistan, whether operating in the private or public sectors. The Policy applies to all degree programs at undergraduate and graduate levels. In this context,

A “Student” is a person who, on the date of the submission of his/her paper/work, is a registered student at any university, DAI, constituent, or affiliated college, recognized by the Higher Education Commission (HEC).

A “Faculty Member/Researcher” includes a faculty member or equivalent at a University/Organization, constituent or affiliated college, or researcher of an organization or any such other person as may be declared so by regulations. A Faculty Member/Researcher may be working on a regular, contractual, visiting, ad hoc, or adjunct basis, or engaged online.

All such scholars/supervisors/stakeholders, who are researching in HEIs/DAIs and have placed their CVs or any other publication(s) on the institutional website, and are applying for any benefit, based on their published or presented works, which later prove to be plagiarized, will be liable to be punished, as per the prescribed rules.

8. Responsibility of the Higher Education Institutions and Organizations

All HEIs/DAIs must effectively communicate this Policy to their students, faculty members, researchers, and staff. Author(s) are deemed individually and collectively responsible for the contents of their paper(s)/book i.e. published work of literature or scholarship (https://www.britannica.com/topic/book-publication)/book/book) chapters, etc. Please see ‘Sample Undertaking’ in Annexure-1.

All HEIs/DAIs and research organizations must provide orientation to young scholars, embarking on ethical research activities, in a bid to spread awareness among them regarding the recognized manuals, such as the MLA Style Sheet, APA User Manual, and other international scholarly norms of conducting, reporting, and sharing of research. Violations of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), including Plagiarism, is a severe crime with legal ramifications. For details, please visit https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines .

Faculty members/supervisors are strongly encouraged to use their subject knowledge and familiarity with the skills/aptitude of students to confidently reinforce in them the highest ethical standards, in terms of discouraging any kind of plagiarism and academic cheating, through the existing detection and academic evaluation mechanisms at their disposal.

Universities which do not follow the HEC Anti-Plagiarism Policy will get reported as non-compliant in the QA criteria for future rankings and funding.

9. Lodging a Plagiarism Complaint

A complaint regarding plagiarism may be lodged with the VC/President/Rector or Head/Principal of the respective university/DAI for further probe. In cases, where the accused person is the Vice-Chancellor/Rector or Head of the Institution, the complaint should be forwarded to the National Plagiarism Standing Committee (NPSC), through Chairperson HEC/ Quality Assurance Division of HEC, with a copy to the Appointing Authority i.e., Chancellor/President as well as the Provincial Higher Education Department/Commission. However, the findings/decision of the NPSC shall be shared with the Appointing Authority/HEIs for implementation/action. The complaint may be forwarded to the respective institution or organization through post, fax, email, or other means. The complainant may be a faculty member, student, or researcher of any of the HEC-recognized universities/DAIs or a concerned citizen. To file a complaint, the complainant is required to share:

A copy of his/her own Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC), if from Pakistan, or Passport, in the case of foreigners, or other legally valid proof of identity
Citation of the original paper or document or idea, which was plagiarized, (paper title, author(s), publication title, month and year of publication, and the journal, in which it was published, with all the details)
Citation of the alleged plagiarized paper (paper title, author(s), publication title, month and year of publication, the journal details where it was published along with the DOI number, if available). If the report is unpublished (e.g., institutional, technical writing), the complainant must provide as much information as possible to ensure proper investigation.
Original Journals or Certified Copies of both the allegedly plagiarized document and the original document e.g., papers or theses or electronic copy with DOI number, where applicable.
Any other information that would help the university/DAI or HEC to efficiently probe the claim/allegation.
Name, Designation, Organization, email address, and telephone number of the complainant.
In case there is a report of an examiner or reviewer that indicates a thesis/work is plagiarized, that report can become the basis of a plagiarism case/investigation. This also applies to a report by a concerned citizen.
In case of failure, on the part of the university/DAI, to take up the case as per the procedure, within 90 days, HEC may forward the complaint to the Chancellor of the university/DAI for information.
The VC/Rector/Head of the organization may become the complainant if there is overwhelming evidence of plagiarism. However, anonymous complaints shall not be considered for any further action.

10. Investigating Plagiarism Complaints

The respective university/organization will, initially, deal with complaints regarding plagiarism, according to the procedure, given below:

For investigation of plagiarism cases, the VC/Rector/Head of the organization shall:

Consider an allegation of plagiarism by students, faculty, and others and constitute a “University Anti-Plagiarism Standing Committee” (UAPSC) with the following composition:
- HEC Nominee – The Quality Assurance Division, HEC will nominate a faculty member, well-conversant with the HEC Anti-plagiarism policy.
- Senior dean and two (02) senior professors from outside University/DAI
- Three subject experts: one from the university/DAI, and two (02) from other universities to be nominated by the Academic Council and approved by Syndicate. The university should maintain a panel of experts, preferably from all major disciplines, duly approved by the Academic Council.
- Director QEC as a member/secretary
Senior faculty members (of the same or other universities) who have unblemished careers and integrity and who meet other parameters indicative of a commitment to research ethics and excellence. The quorum of the committee will be comprised of four (04) members. The seniority/rank of the University Anti-Plagiarism Standing Committee members should be equal to or greater than the accused, keeping in view the seniority/rank of the individual being investigated and the nature and gravity of the offense. The opinion of the subject experts should be given due weightage. However, the decision shall be based on principle, not on the majority. The senior member will chair the UAPSC. Policy guidelines and SOPs may be provided by the university to the UAPSC for assistance.
Provide clear Terms of Reference (ToR) to the UAPSC for the investigation. Sample ToRs are enclosed as Annexure-2.
Provide a fair opportunity to the accused or author(s) under investigation to defend the originality of their concepts and research work. A similar opportunity will also be provided to the author(s) whose paper(s) is/are deemed to have been plagiarized and/or the complainant (if any), to testify to the veracity of the allegations in the plagiarism complaint.
Facilitate the UAPSC to use all available means, including legal and E&D provisions, to investigate the plagiarism case.
All members of the UAPSC are to sign confidentiality and conflict of interest statements. If a conflict of interest occurs, the member(s) are to recuse themselves. During the investigation, the committee members will not disclose any individual author’s name, paper titles, referees, or any other personal or specific information concerning the plagiarism complaint under investigation, nor shall they reveal their names. The findings of the respective committee would be placed before the Appointing/Administrative Authority (Syndicate for Students/Faculty and Chancellor for VC) for review and necessary action. In case of a complaint against VCs, the HEC can assist the Appointing Authority. This would apply to both VCs currently serving and those who are retired as VCs if the allegation corresponds to their tenure(s) as VCs.
The University Anti-Plagiarism Standing Committee will submit an investigation report to the Head of the institution within 60 days which will also be shared with the complainant. In case of disagreement, the complainant may file an appeal to the Syndicate within the next 30 days.
The Head of the Institution or Registrar or Director QEC will notify the outcome/decision to the complainant, accuser(s), and HEC.

11. Role of the University Anti-Plagiarism Standing Committee

The University Anti-Plagiarism Standing Committee shall conduct the investigation. Depending on the details of the complaint, the investigation may include the following steps:

Automated Check through Electronic Detection System (EDS) for content similarity or its extent by the Subject expert(s). Please see Annexure-3.
Hard copies/Manually generated content can be scanned and converted to a searchable format.
Determine the magnitude and quantum of significant material plagiarized.
Solicit comments from the publishers and other relevant quarters.
Contact relevant witnesses to gather and record statements when necessary.
If needed, interview the present and/or past employers/supervisors/collaborators or any other persons of interest related to the author(s).
Consult with the legal counsel of the concerned University on all related matters throughout the inquiry process.
Take any other necessary step(s), if deems fit to take.

12. Submission of Findings by UAPSC

The UAPSC will submit its findings and recommendations to the Vice Chancellor/Rector/Head of the Organization within sixty (60) days. It should also be communicated to the publisher where applicable. Decisions made by the committee and approved by the Syndicate are to be implemented as soon as possible. Appeal against the decision of UAPSC will be made before the Syndicate within thirty (30) days of UAPSC decision.

13. Penalties for Plagiarism

Plagiarism is an unacceptable intellectual offense. As such, the penalties for plagiarism should be commensurate with the severity and recurrence of the offense as well as based on the impact of the academic standing of the offender. This entails a proportional increase in punitive action with minimum punishment for a first-time offense by a student/scholar who copies a homework assignment to a maximum punishment for a teacher/researcher/staff who publishes plagiarized material.

13.1 Grounds to Determine the Penalty:

When an act of plagiarism, as described above, is established, the UAPSC in its recommendations, DEPENDING UPON THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE PROVEN OFFENCE, will advise the Competent Authority of the University/DAIs to take any one or a combination of the following disciplinary action(s) against those found guilty of the offence:

Grounds for Major Penalty: If the act of plagiarism is determined to be:
- Deliberate
- Constitutes much of the publication.
- Is a duplicate publication claimed for credit more than once by the author(s)
- Is between 35% and 50% in the similarity index and/ or over 30% in the findings.
- Is simply a translation of another work.
- The result of collusion or falsification.
- Is a work of junk science (presenting untested and unproved theories, as scientific facts are known as junk science).
- Is material in which reference to the original material is not given.
Major Penalty:
- Removal from service from the current institution/university as a faculty/non-faculty employee.
- Dismissal from the services as faculty/ non-faculty employee
- The awards/grants/benefits received based on plagiarized content shall be withdrawn, including promotion.
- Expulsion from the HEI (in the case of students).
- Suspension of studies for two (02) semesters (in the case of students)
- The offender may be barred from joining any institution of Higher Education in Pakistan for one year (in the case of the student)
- HEC or University/DAI may debar the offender from sponsorship of research funding, travel grant, scholarship, fellowship, or any other funded program for two (02) years.
- In the case of a published work, University or DAI should inform the publisher about the findings and request them to withdraw the plagiarized work forthwith.
- The offender may be stopped for supervision of new students (MPhil & Ph.D. students) for two (02) years. However, the students who are already in supervision will continue as supervisees of the offender(s).
- A notice may be circulated among all academic institutions and research organization.
Grounds for Moderate Penalty: If plagiarism is determined to be:
- Deliberate
- Spread over a substantial part of the paper.
- Is between 25% and 35% in the similarity index (exclusive of tables, figures, and references) and/or 20-30% in the findings.
- The results of collusion or falsification.
- Is a work of junk science (presenting untested and unproved theories, as scientific facts are known as junk science)
Moderate Penalty:
- The offender may fail the course (in the case of the student)
- The offender may be stopped from increments/promotions/new appointments for two (02) years.
- The offender may be stopped for supervision of new students (both MPhil & Ph.D. students) for one (01) year. However, the students who are already in supervision will continue as supervisees of the offender.
- The offender shall not be eligible to seek and avail the funding for any national/international projects/grants and will not be eligible to become part of any joint project for one (01) year.
C. Grounds for Minor Penalty: If the plagiarism is determined to be:
- Unintentional; however, neither claimed for benefit nor mentioned in the CV.
- Concentrated on one part of the paper.
- Not more than 20 to 25% similarity index overall and/or 10% in the findings
- Does not materially affect the results. e. Due to an error or omission or lapse of judgment.
Minor Penalty:
- Proposal revision (in the case of students)
- Mandatory to pass the “Research Ethics Course” before completing the degree.
- The offender may be given a formal warning which must be placed in the dossier/personal file.

13.2 Illustration/Examples:

In this scenario, a paper has over 25% Similarity Index (SI) and 15% of that is in the findings because the author did not properly rephrase the paper and was derived from an existing theoretical model. The author accepts the error while the findings are credible. The UAPSC, in this case, may award a minor penalty.
In this scenario, a paper is found to have been deliberately copied in part and is clearly the result of collusion among several authors. However, the findings are not necessarily inaccurate, and the SI is around 35% overall and 15% in the findings. In this case, a moderate penalty can be imposed.
In this scenario, the author(s) have published modified versions of the same paper in multiple journals and claimed credit for them. There is clear evidence of collusion and intent to defraud academia. This is a case that merits a severe penalty.

Note: It is worth noting that UAPSC may impose one or more than one penalty in all cases i.e., minor, moderate, and major penalties. Of course, it needs to be emphasized that these guidelines are meant to be employed with due caution and reason on the part of the UAPSC, keeping in view the particularities of a given case.

If a paper is published in a supervisor-student relationship, then the student (s) will be the first author. This condition applies when a student is enrolled in a degree program and the supervisor is advising him/her in research work i.e., thesis or dissertation.

13.3 Co-author(s)/Declarations

The primary responsibility for plagiarism in a publication lies with the Principal Authors (Corresponding Author/First Author). Any co-author(s) may be deemed partly responsible for plagiarism if the UAPSC investigation reveals that they were aware of the wrongdoing and chose to benefit from it, with their consent for publication duly taken. If the published work is part of a thesis of student and the co-author is not a supervisor, then justifications will be required in the form of no conflict of interest in publication.
All authors/co-authors of a publication must sign a declaration that the material presented is not plagiarized (Sample attached as Annexure-1) and must exercise caution and diligence in associating themselves with any research work.

14. Additional Actions Required

In addition to the above punishments/considerations, the following additional actions must be taken, if the offence of plagiarism is established:

If the plagiarized publication is accessible on the webpage, its access will be retracted.
The publication itself will be kept in the database for future research or legal purposes.
The author(s) will be asked to write a formal letter of apology to the authors of the original publication that was plagiarized.
If the publication is submitted but not published, the draft publication will be rejected. However, a written warning shall be served to the author/co-authors.

15. National Plagiarism Standing Committee

The HEC will establish a National Plagiarism Standing Committee (NPSC) to probe complaints against VC/Rectors/Head of Institution.

If a plagiarism complaint is not addressed by the university despite multiple attempts by the complainant, the complainant has the option to forward that complaint to HEC NPSC through the Chairperson, HEC, or the Head of the Quality Assurance Division. However, to have his/her complaint considered, the complainant shall be required to produce evidence that he/ she has submitted the complaint to the Vice Chancellor of the concerned university at least three (03) times.

Once the complaint is forwarded to HEC, the matter will be taken up with the university to place the complaint before the UAPSC. The University will be liable to submit a report to HEC within sixty (60) days. In case of non-compliance by the university, HEC NPSC will take up the matter for resolution and the Vice Chancellor will receive a formal ‘Note of Displeasure’ consequently.

Membership of the National Plagiarism Standing Committee (NPSC) shall be for an initial period of two (02) years, extendable for another term(s). If a member does not show up consecutively for three (03) meetings without any strong justification, membership may be replaced. The NPSC will comprise of:

Chair of the Committee: The Executive Director, HEC will Chair the Committee.
Eminent Educationist/Professors: Of known integrity to be nominated by the Chairperson, HEC.
Four (04) Subject Experts: To be proposed by the Quality Assurance Division in consultation with Academics and Research & Innovation Division from the broad disciplines viz. (medical, engineering, agriculture, and social sciences) of the study. The Executive Director of HEC will approve the experts from the jointly suggested list.
Director General/Head of the Quality Assurance Division.
The Quality Assurance Division shall provide the Secretariat Support to NPSC. The Chairperson HEC will approve the recommendations of NPSC.
The Convener of the NPSC may co-opt additional members if needed. The quorum of the committee will be two-thirds of the members including at least one (01) subject expert.

16. Appeal

HEC NPSC will be responsible to process the appeal in the following scenarios:

Complaints Against Students, Faculty, Researchers, and Other Stakeholders: * Initial complaint lodged at the university/organization where the accused is employed. * University Anti-Plagiarism Standing Committee (UAPSC) investigates and concludes the matter.
First Appeal: Against the UAPSC decision, an appeal can be lodged with the university’s Syndicate within 30 days of the UAPSC decision notification.
Second Appeal: The complainant/accuser may lodge a second appeal to the NPSC (through the Chairperson, HEC/Head of Quality Assurance Division of HEC) within six (06) months of the first complaint.
Plagiarism Complaint Against VC/Rector/Head of the Organization: * This is investigated by the NPSC as an initial complaint.
Appeal: If the complainant or accused is dissatisfied with the NPSC recommendations, an appeal against the NPSC recommendations may be filed to the Chairperson HEC. In this specific scenario, the NPSC subject experts entertaining the appeal will be different from those who conducted the initial investigation.

A. The process of appeal for NPSC is given below:

Submission: Appeals filed by the complainant/accused should be submitted before the Chairperson HEC/Head of the Quality Assurance Division in writing (hard copy application, email, or fax).
Review and Experts: The National Plagiarism Standing Committee (NPSC) shall review the appeal and co-opt subject expert(s) accordingly (if required).
Opportunity for Defense: The complainant and accused shall be given the opportunity to justify or provide evidence before the appeal committee in their defense.
Evidence Review: The NPSC shall review complaint(s) in the light of evidence/justification produced by the accused.
Legal Opinion: The Law Officer shall provide an opinion about the legal aspects of the Appeal.
Meeting Minutes: The Minutes of the Meeting shall be recorded by the Secretary of the Committee/by his supporting staff and approved by the Chairperson with the consent of the members.
Decision Conveyance: The final decision made by the Committee shall be conveyed to the appellant, Institution, as well as to the Appointing Authority (if the complaint is against the Vice Chancellor/Head of the organization) through a letter after the approval of the HEC’s competent authority.

B. The process of appeal for the University Anti-Plagiarism Standing Committee (UAPSC) is given below:

Submission: Appeals filed by the complainant/accused should be submitted before the Syndicate in writing (hard copy application or email).
Review and Experts: The UAPSC shall review the appeal and co-opt the subject expert(s) accordingly (if required).
Opportunity for Defense: The complainant and accused shall be given the opportunity to justify or provide evidence before the appeal committee in their defense.
Evidence Review: The UAPSC shall review complaint(s) in the light of evidence/justification produced by the accused.
Legal Opinion: UAPSC may also seek legal opinion through the University Law Officer.
Meeting Minutes: The Minutes of the Meeting shall be recorded by the Secretary of the Committee/by his/her supporting staff and approved by the Chairperson with the consent of the members.
Decision Conveyance: The final decision made by the Committee shall be conveyed to the appellant, Head of the Institution/Rector/Vice Chancellor, as well as to the Syndicate. A copy of the decision shall also be forwarded to the Head of the Quality Assurance Division. In case of dissatisfaction, the accused may file an appeal to the Chairperson HEC/Head of the Quality Assurance Division.

17. Spurious/Malicious Accusations of Plagiarism

If the case of plagiarism is not proven, and it is suspected that a spurious allegation was lodged, the Vice-Chancellor/Rector/Appointing Authority may initiate disciplinary proceedings under the Organization’s Statutes and E&D/Student University Disciplinary rules against the accuser. Defamation Laws may also be applicable, in case of loss of reputation. If the accuser is from another organization, the Head of the Organization will be informed about the false allegation(s) with the request to proceed with disciplinary action against the accused. The name(s) of the false accuser(s) be subject to blacklisting as specified on the HEC website for a fixed period. Further, false accusers will not be eligible for the award of any grant/benefit from HEC. At each step of the process, HEC ought to be kept informed by the concerned organization.