ASIT KUMAR KUNDU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner was aggrieved by an order passed by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Bankura, on 25th January, 2019 by which, the President of the concerned school, was directed to take immediate steps to discharge the petitioner from the post of Teacher-in-charge of the school for the smooth running of the school and for appointment of a new Teacher-in-charge in place of the writ petitioner. By the impugned order, it has been noted by the District Inspector of Schools that under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Appointment, Confirmation, Conduct and Discipline of Teachers and Non-Teaching staff) Rules, 2018 and the Notification dated 8th March, 2018, the Board is the competent authority to take disciplinary action against misconduct of the concerned teacher of the non-teaching staff of a school.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on the 2018 Rules as published on 8th March, 2018 and Rule 3(d) thereunder which authorises the Board to take disciplinary action against the misconduct of a teacher as well as Rule 5 under which the Board is empowered to authorise any officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Schools to conduct preliminary investigation against a teacher upon receipt of a complaint pertaining to the misconduct of a teacher. Under Rule 5(2) if the preliminary investigation reveals the prima facie case of misconduct, the Board shall issue show cause notice to the concerned teacher against whom the complaint has been made to enable him to explain his acts. Learned counsel submits that the District Inspector of Schools directing the President of the School to discharge the petitioner from the post of Teacher-in- charge is not in compliance with the 2018 Rules. Counsel further disputes the Show Cause notice issued to the petitioner on 14th January, 2019 by the District Inspector of Schools levelling various charges against the Teacher-in-charge (Writ petitioner).

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the District Inspector of Schools submits that there is no scope for interference with the impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools since the District Inspector of Schools has acted on the basis of an enquiry Report of enquiry officers which found that illegal activities had been carried on by the writ petitioner as the Teacher-in-charge of the school. Counsel further submits that the order records that it is the Board who is competent to take disciplinary action against the misconduct of a teacher under the relevant Rules.