SPECIAL OFFICER DISTRICT OF SCHOOLS Vs. DURGADAS MUKHOPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 6th july, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 46 (W)of 1995 allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order dated 12th april, 1994.

(2.) THE relevant facts, in short, are that a complaint pointing out financial and other irregularities was lodged against the authorities of the school. Thereafter, an enquiry was held. It was alleged that as the writ petitioner who is the respondent in this appeal was not inclined to place the documents including the books of accounts. The District Inspector of schools was directed by the Director of School Education either to visit the school with adequate police force or direct the Headmaster and secretary of the school to attend the office with all records. Thereafter, pursuant to requisitions some documents were produced. One Gaur chandra Baidya was appointed as the Administrator of the School. It was alleged that at the time of taking over charge though requested neither the Headmaster nor the Secretary was present. A special audit was conducted. Allegations were made that there were mis-appropriation or defalcation of money. Thereafter, the Director of School Education requested the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) to direct the Administrator of the school to lodge F. I. R. with the Police Station against the President, the Secretary and the Headmaster of the school. The administrator was also directed to take administrative step against the person involved in the irregularities. On 13th November, 1992 the F. I. R. was lodged by the Administrator. On 14th November, 1992 the respondent was suspended by the Administrator. A writ petition challenging the said order of suspension was filed. The said writ petition was disposed of on 22nd December, 1992 in which the following order was passed: -"i extend the time for a further period of fort night from this date of order to enable the Board either to grant approval to the order of suspension or disapprove the same. " (Page 486 of the Paper book)

(3.) ON 23rd February, 1993 the Administrator of the school issued the charge-sheet. It was served on the wife of the respondent who by letter dated 19th February, 1993 sought extension of time to file reply on the ground that her husband was ailing. The same was allowed. Later the wife of the respondent repeatedly requested the Administrator to furnish documents to give a reply to the charges. The Administrator insisted on inspection of the documents and allowed preparation of notes on the basis of inspection for the purpose of reply. By letter dated 30th July, 1993 the administrator fixed the dates for inspection. It was also intimated that the respondents would be required to submit the reply to the charge-sheet within a period of seven days from the date of inspection failing which he shall have no other alternative but to proceed. Since the petitioner did not appear the Administrator fixed a fresh date and it was intimated that if the respondent failed to turn up the matter would be decided ex parte. The respondent did not turn up. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Board praying to supply documents upon which the charge-sheet was drawn. The Administrator was intimated and a prayer was made for Stay of the proceedings till the matter was decided by the Appeal Committee of the Board of Secondary Education. In the meantime on 27th August, 1993 during the pendency of the appeal, the Administrator passed an order holding that the respondent committed irregularities and sought approval of the Board on the first stage of the proceedings. By memo dated 16th september, 1993 the Administrator forwarded all documents to the secretary of the Board. However, the Secretary by a Memo dated 14th october, 1993 intimated the Secretary of the Institution the decision of the appeal Committee that the authorities should supply copies of all relevant documents to the respondent at a very early date. Later, however upon a perusal of the letter dated 17th November, 1993 the Board reversed its decision and only inspection of the documents was allowed. The committee constituted under Section 24 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary education Act, 1963 in its meeting held on 7th April, 1994 accorded approval 442 Special Officer (D. I. S. (SE), Cal. v. Durgadas Mukhopadhyay [2007 (2)CLJ (Cal)of the first stage of the disciplinary proceedings and by letter dated 12th april, 1994 the same was intimated. The school authority was also directed to issue show-cause notice why the punishment proposed shall not be initiated.