S. C. Mathur, J. - (1.) THESE two petitions pertain to the punishment awarded to the petitioner who was a 5th Semester MBBS Student in King Georges Medical College. Originally the punishment of suspending the petitioner from pursuing his studies in KGMC was awarded by order dated 26th May, 1988. In this order the period of suspension had not been prescribed. This order has now been modified by order dated 29th July, 1988 whereby the period of suspension has been fixed as one year. Further the petitioner has been required to deposit the cost of book failing which the period of suspension will stand extended to eighteen months.
(2.) THE main ground of challenge is that the inquiry proceedings are vitiated inasmuch as the inquiry officer was a witness of the occurrence which has led to the imposition of the punishment. A few facts, necessary for the disposal of the petition, may be noticed. Admittedly the petitioner was appearing at examination on 29th April, 1988. On that date two teachers of the medical college noticed that the petitioner had brought with him and kept outside the examination hall loose sheets from the book 'Clinical Pharmacology' by Ronald H. Girdwood. These teachers were of the opinion that these loose sheets had been torn from the book in the College Library. The petitioner was accordingly served with a charge memo dated 2nd May, 1988 requiting him to submit his explanation within three days. The charge levelled against him was of tearing away pages from the book mentioned herein above which belonged to the reserve section of the Library. The petitioner submitted his reply on 7th May, 1988. His defence was that he had not torn the pages from the Library book but had torn the pages from the book belonging to his father. The inquiry into the matter was entrusted to Professor G. P. Gupta. Professor G. P. Gupta issued memorandum on 13th May 1988 to the petitioner requiring him to produce before him his father's book. The petitioner was also required to adduce any other evidence which he may like to adduce in support of his defence. It appears that the petitioner produced his father's book before professor Gupta on 14th May, 1988. Thereafter Professor Gupta issued a memorandum on 24th May, 1988 to the petitioner requiring him to appear before him on 26th May, 1988 for certain clarifications. According to the petitioner when he went to the College on 26th May, 1988 he was handed over the impugned order of suspension. The petitioner submitted his representation against the punishment on 6th June, 1988. The Principal did not allow the representation by order dated 9th June, 1988. On 5th July, 1988 the petitioner filed writ petition no. 5098 of 1988 in this Court. During the pendency of this writ petition the order dated 20th July 1988 to which reference has been made above was passed. On behalf of the Medical College no counter affidavit has been filed but on our requirement the learned counsel for the Medical College produced the relevant record. We have perused the said record.
(3.) ONE of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that the punishment was imposed upon him before the inquiry had concluded. From the perusal of the record we find that the argument has substance. It appears from the record that Professor Gupta prepared his inquiry report and signed the same on 21st May, 1988. This report, he forwarded to the Principal, Professor V. K. Khanna, under covering letter dated 23rd May, 1988. On 24th May, 1986 Professor Khanna required Professor Gupta to send the book from which the pages had been allegedly torn by the petitioner. We may assume that the book was forwarded to Professor Khanna by Professor Gupta. As already stated the impugned order was passed on 26th May, 1988 and before that the petitioner had been required to appear before the inquiry officer on 26th May, 1988 by memorandum dated 24th May, 1988. From these facts it is apparent that the inquiry remained pending upto 24th May, 1988. If the inquiry remained pending upto 24th May, 1988 there was no occasion for Professor Gupta to prepare his inquiry report and send the same on 21st May, 1988. This infirmity in the proceedings vitiates the order of punishment passed against him. There is considerable substance in the second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner also, namely, the Professor Gupta could not be the inquiry officer as he was a witness of the occurrence. In fact from the material on record it can be said that Professor Gupta was a complainant against the petitioner. The argument finds substance from the charge memo dated 2nd May, 1988 sent by the Principal to the petitioner. in this memorandum it is stated thus : "They were discovered yesterday (29-4-88) during Pharmacology Terminal Examination by Professor G. B. Gupta and Professor K. K. Tangri. " From this it is apparent that Professor Gupta was a witness and was also in the nature of a complainant. Professor Gupta had realised his delicacy in being the inquiry officer and had written to Professor Khanna on 11th May, 1988 requesting him to entrust the inquiry to some other person. Professor Gupta specifically stated that he was a witness to the incident and therefore it would not be appropriate for him to conduct the inquiry. Unfortunately the Principal did not realise the import of Professor Gupta's letter and insisted on his completing the inquiry. Professor Gupta has made a significant observation in his letter which should have been taken note of by the Principal. He has mentioned - " I may not be able to shed bias. " Even after this specific statement by Professor Gupta the Principal did not find it necessary to change the inquiry officer. The inquiry is obviously vitiated on account of the same having been conducted by a person who was in the nature of complainant as well as a witness.;