DWIJENDRA LAL SARKAR Vs. PRITIMOY HORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 10th May, 1981 the Governing Body of Bhairab Gaguly College, Belgachia which was a Government sponsored Institution, had purported to accept the report of an Enquiry Committee and had resolved to dismiss the respondent no. 1, Pritimoy Hore, who was a Clerk cum Typist of the said college. Against the said dismissal, Pritimoy Hore had purported to file an appeal to the Director of Public Instruction, Government of West Bengal, Writers Buildings. Thereafter, he had. moved in this Court an application under Article 22 6 of the constitution of India, inter-alia, with the prayer that the director of Public Instruction Government of West Bengal be directed to dispose of his said appeal as well as the application for stay made in the said appeal. Notices of the said application, being Civil Order No. 117 13 (W) of 1981, having been served upon the respondents, the Principal of the said college and the University had appeared in the said Civil Order.

(2.) ON 1st December, 1981, B. C. Roy, J. disposed of the said writ/petition of Pritimoy Hore. The learned Judge recorded in his order that according to Statute 13 (b) of the Statutes framed under the Calcutta University Act, 1961 appeal against the order of dismissal passed against the writ petitioner, would have to be preferred before the Vice Chancellor, Calcutta university within 30 days from the receipt of the order imposing penalty or penalties. Mr. J. K. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had submitted that his client would prefer/appeal before the appropriate authority. The learned judge declined to make any observation as to whether in computing limitation, the Appellate Authority ought to exclude the time during which the writ application was prosecuted by the writ petitioner. The learned judge in his order dated 1st December, 1981 held that the appeal before the Director of Public Instruction, Government of West Bengal had been preferred in a wrong forum and the prayer for issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to expedite the hearing and disposal of the said appeal had become infructuous. The learned trial Judge further observed that it was not necessary for him to say that the Appellate Authority before whom the appeal would be now filed, would consider the question of limitation in accordance with law. Vic understand that Pritimoy Hore, against his dismissal from service, with effect from 21st May, 1981, had filed an appeal life ere the Vice, Chancellor, Calcutta University. On 31st march, 1981, R. N. Pyme, J. passed an order in Civil Order no. 117 13 (W) of 1981 that the pending appeal filed by the petitioner to the Vice Chancellor, Calcutta University be disposed of at an early date preferably within four weeks in accordance with the Calcutta University First Statute, 1979. Being achieved, by the said order of R. N. Pyne, J. dated 3rd March, 1982, the Principal and some of the Members of the Governing body of the said College have preferred F. M. A No. 2277 of 1983. On 30th May, 1983, Civil Order No. 117 13 (W) of 1981 had been placed as 'to Be Mentioned' before B. C. Roy, J. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner and for the University of calcutta had appeared. B. C. Roy J. recorded that Statute 13 (b) of the Statutes of the Calcutta University Act, 1966, was not applicable to Government Sponsored Colleges, including bhairab Ganguly College till the coming into force of the Calcutta University Act, 1979. The learned judge purported to order However, in consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also of the submission made by the learned advocates for both parties and also in consideration of the serious inconvenience that will result with the petitioner, i direct the Appellate Authority under Statute 13 (b) of trie calcutta University Statute, 1966 or the Delegated Authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner as a special case as early as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of this order. This order is made as special case and it should not be taken in any circumstances as a precedent". Being aggrieved, by the said order dated 30th may, 1 983 D. L. Sarkar, the Principal of the said College preferred F. M. A. T. No. 1 655 of 1933

(3.) ON or about 10th Jane, 1983 the pro vice Chancellor, Calcutta University to whom the appeal of Pritimoy Hore was delegated had allowed the said appeal set aside the Older of dismissal dated 20th March, 198 1 and directed the Governing Body of the said College to pay Pritimoy hore 50% of his back salaries.