JUDGMENT 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. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 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. 5. There is another infirmity in the order dated 20-7-1988 whereby the petitioner has been required to deposit the cost of the book. This part of the order is vague. The order does not indicate whether the petitioner is required to deposit the current price of the book or the purchase price of the book. 5. There is another infirmity in the order dated 20-7-1988 whereby the petitioner has been required to deposit the cost of the book. This part of the order is vague. The order does not indicate whether the petitioner is required to deposit the current price of the book or the purchase price of the book. To be specific, the order should have indicated the exact amount which the petitioner was required to deposit. Since the failure to deposit cost of the book was to result in extension of the period of suspension, the time within which the cost was to be deposited was also required to be indicated. This has not been done. 6. For all the above reasons the two orders of punishment cannot be sustained. Before closing we may deal with the submission of the petitioner's learned counsel that the punishment is beyond the scope of the Library Rules, extract wherefrom has been filed as Annexure No. 9 to the later writ petition. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner produced before us the book from which the passage contained in Annexure No 9 had been extracted. A perusal of this book showed that the Rules had been framed for the Tagore Library of the Lucknow University. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that these Rules apply to the libraries of the King George Medical College also. For the purposes of the present case we may assume it to be so. However we are unable to accept the submission that the punishment is beyond the scope of the Rules. We proceed to give our reasons therefor. 7. Under the heading 'Arth Dand' are prescribed various punishments for different kinds of defaults or misconducts. Clause 4 occurring under this head reads as follows ;- Pustak Ko Vikrit (Mutilate) Karney Par 50 Rupiya Athwa Issey Bhi Adhik Dhanrashi Ka Arth Dand, Pustakalaya Ke Upyog Se Vanchit Tatha Gambhir Vastu Isthit Me Vishwavidalaya Se Niskasan Ki Sanstuti Bini Ki Ja Sakti Hai. " (emphasis supplied). From the emphasised portion it would appear that the punishment can extend even upto expulsion from the institution. UNDER this clause the minimum punishment is Rupees fifty and the maximum is expulsion from the institution. Suspension from the institution for a specified period falls in between the minimum and the maximum punishments mentioned herein. " (emphasis supplied). From the emphasised portion it would appear that the punishment can extend even upto expulsion from the institution. UNDER this clause the minimum punishment is Rupees fifty and the maximum is expulsion from the institution. Suspension from the institution for a specified period falls in between the minimum and the maximum punishments mentioned herein. It cannot therefore be said that the punishment of suspension from the Medical College is beyond the scope of the Rules relied upon by the learned counsel tor the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel however submits that such a punishment could be awarded only when the alleged misconduct or default was of a grave nature. According to him the present alleged misconduct was not of a grave nature. The argument is based on the use of the word "Gambhir" in clause 4. All punishments have to commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Misconduct or default, of course, where a minimum punishment has been prescribed, the punishing authority cannot impose a punishment lighter than the prescribed minimum. Similarly where a maximum punishment has been prescribed, the punishing authority shall not be competent to award punishment in excess of the prescribed maximum. Where discretion is available to the punishing authority between the prescribed minimum and maximum punishments, as in the present case, that discretion will have to be reasonably exercised, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. In a fair exercise of discretion the punishment should not be ridiculously low nor unduly harsh. 9. We cannot say as a broad proposition of law that tearing of pages from the book of a College library is not a grave misconduct. Books in the college library are meant to be read by the students and the teachers. The students read the books for acquiring knowledge, The teachers read the books for acquiring knowledge and imparting the same to the students through lectures. When pages from a book are removed the students are deprived of the knowledge contained in those pages and the teacher is handicapped in preparing his lectures. Thus students and the teachers both suffer. But the ultimate sufferer is the student community, present as well as future. The suffering ends only when the book is replaced by purchasing another book. When pages from a book are removed the students are deprived of the knowledge contained in those pages and the teacher is handicapped in preparing his lectures. Thus students and the teachers both suffer. But the ultimate sufferer is the student community, present as well as future. The suffering ends only when the book is replaced by purchasing another book. This itself may take some time, especially when the book happens to be a foreign publication, like the book involved in the present case. The loss to the student community may be irreparable when the book happens to be out of market. Such a book cannot be replaced. In such a case the punishment may be harsh but if the book is replaceable, the punishment may be lighter. 10. Similarly for a single act of misconduct the punishment may be lighter. For repeated acts of misconduct the punishment may be harsh. Even on the regular criminal side there is First Offenders Act whereunder an accused committing an offence of the specified nature cannot be sent to jail. Thus first offence is a mitigating circumstance. Again, an accused may be dealt with leniently if he shows remorse and the punishing authority gets assurance that the remorse is genuine and the accused will not commit the offence again. 11. Further, the nature of the misconduct, the place where the misconduct is committed, the office held by the punishing authority are also relevant factors which go into the determination of the quantum of punishment. The Principal of an educational institution may be invested with the power to punish a delinquent student, bat the exercise of the power by him will have to be different from the exercise of the power by the Magistrate who is also entitled to impose punishments. The magistrate determines the quantum of punishment keeping in view how best to enforce law and order. The Principal imposes punishment to discipline the student. This necessarily calls for a different approach to imposition of punishment by a teacher including the Principal. 12. An educational institution is a second home for a student. At home he is subject to the disciplinary control of his parents. At school or college he is subject to the disciplinary control of his teachers. The teachers are, so to say, his second parents. The parents punish their children so as to correct them. 12. An educational institution is a second home for a student. At home he is subject to the disciplinary control of his parents. At school or college he is subject to the disciplinary control of his teachers. The teachers are, so to say, his second parents. The parents punish their children so as to correct them. That attitude should in form the punishment awarded by the teachers also. In awarding the punishment emphasis should be on reformative aspect than punitive. From the above it would be seen that a variety of factors go. into the determination of punishment to be awarded by a teacher to student the impugned order do not exhibit that the Principal was conscious of these factors when he passed the impugned orders Although in the opinion of the Principal the petitioner had mutilated the book which, perhaps, required replacement, he did not, in his first order, require the petitioner to deposit the price of the book. Though that order merely suspended the petitioner from the college, the order did not indicate whether the suspension was to be temporary or permanent. The subsequent order shows that the suspension was intended to be temporary. This is apparent from fixation of suspension period through the subsequent order. Apart from fixing the period of suspension, the subsequent order requires the petitioner to deposit the price of the book. When the Principal was requiring the petitioner to deposit the price of the book, he should have considered whether the suspension was still required to be maintained or it could be substituted by some monetary punishment in the shape of tine to be deposited by the petitioner over and above the price of the took. Assuming the allegation made against the petitioner to be correct and further assuming that the petitioner was involved in such an occurrence for the first time, we feel that the punishment awarded errs on the side of severity. 13. In view of the above the writ petition will have to be allowed and the impugned orders of punishment will have to be quashed. 14. In view of the above the petitions are allowed and the impugned order of punishment dated 26th May, 1988 and 20th July, 1988 are hereby quashed. 13. In view of the above the writ petition will have to be allowed and the impugned orders of punishment will have to be quashed. 14. In view of the above the petitions are allowed and the impugned order of punishment dated 26th May, 1988 and 20th July, 1988 are hereby quashed. It will be open to the opposite parties to hold fresh inquiry against the petitioner but the same must be concluded expeditiously as the career of a student is involved. There shall be no order as to costs. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the learned Standing Counsel may be directed to communicate the operative order to the Principal. We hope the learned counsel for the State shall comply with the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitions allowed.