KRISHNAPADA TARAFDER Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been taken out in the year 2006, by a retired headmaster, who at the time of attaining superannuation was under suspension. The school where the writ Petitioner was the headmaster was being run by an administrator, who was appointed sometime in 1999. During a surprise inspection, the administrator found that although on a number of days fees were collected from students amounting to Rs. 12,000/-, on all those days such fees were received by the writ Petitioner from the clerk of the school through a hand-written book, out of which only Rs. 6,000/- was shown in the receipt book of the school. The administrator, subsequently, constituted a fact finding enquiry committee which came to a decision and submitted a report to the administrator. In the report, charges of defalcation and misappropriation of funds as well as misuse of power, as evident from the record, were established. Based on an order passed by this Court, the writ Petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before an appeal committee which culminated in a decision rendered by the said appeal committee on 19th April, 2006, which was subsequently communicated to the writ Petitioner by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, vide memo dated 4th May. 2006. This decision rendered by the appeal committee is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The specific contention of the learned advocate for the writ Petitioner is that the appeal committee rendered its decision against the writ Petitioner on the basis of no evidence. Learned advocate for the writ Petitioner submits that the audit report which has been sought to be relied on is based on no material evidence and the appeal committee itself was in a doubt as to whether the writ Petitioner was hundred percent responsible for the total defalcation of school funds.

(3.) Learned advocate for the Petitioner also submits that curiously enough, the clerk of the school, who was said to be involved along with the headmaster, was not proceeded against and stood exonerated. Learned advocate for the Petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Ors., 2009 2 SCC 570 and submits that the charges levelled against a delinquent officer must be found to have been proved and it is the duty of the enquiry officer to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials on record. He submits that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, no such charges have been proved and no material or evidence was ever adduced in support of the charges levelled against the headmaster.