RADHESHYAM SENAPATI Vs. W B BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
W. B. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
Click here to view full judgement.
B.C. RAY. J. -
(1.) This Rule is by the approved teacher whose service has been terminated against the order made by the Appeal Committee of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education made on 14. 1.75 on the ground that the impugned order of the Appeal Committee is illegal and bad being in contravention of the provisions laid down by the statute and the statutory rules.
(2.) The short fact of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Tentulia Sarang N.N. High School on 1. 7. 65 in a permanent vacancy by the managing committee of the school. The letter of appointment was annexed as annexure 'A' to the writ application. . His appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Midnapore (respondent No. 5) as evident from letter of approval dated 4.12. 67 annexed as annexure B to the writ application. Thereafter the petitioner worked in the school upto 19. 9. 69. It has been pleaded in the petition that due to his illness he was bed ridden and could riot go to school from 22. 9. 69. to 25. 9. 69 when a letter was received by him from the headmaster of the said school asking him to give an explanation why he remained absent from the school without giving any information to the school authorities. It has been pleaded that the petitioner sent a registered letter dated 26. 9. 69 explaining has cause of absence along with a medical certificate and this was duly received by the headmaster as evident from the Acknowledgment receipt on 29. 9. 69. He has also intimated that he will resume his duties on and from 29. 9, 69. It has been pleaded further that on 29. 9. 69 when the petitioner went to the school to resume his duties he was prevented by the headmaster of the said school on the plea that he did not receive any reply to the letter dated 24 9. 69. The petitioner thereafter brought the matter to the notice of the Secretary of the said school about the refusal of the head master to permit him to join the institution but no reply was received by him from the President as well as the Secretary of the said school. The headmaster all on a sudden declared closure of the school on 14.10.69 though the school was scheduled to be closed on 17.10. 69 on account of Puja Vacation. Being baffled in his attempt to get redress either from the Secretary or from the President of the Managing Committee of the School the petitioner made two applications on 23.10.69 and 4.11. 69 before the respondent no 5, the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Midnapore, stating all the facts and praying for redress. Having received no reply the petitioner was compelled to prefer an appeal on 9. 3.70 before the Appeal Committee of the Board praying for his reinstatement and payment of arrear salary since March, 1979. This appeal has been disposed of by order dated 14. 1. 75 holding that though the formalities were not observed by the school authorities in dismissing the petitioner from service and the procedure adopted was irregular still it was directed that the cause of justice would be better served if gratuity amounting to three months' pay in lieu of reinstatement was paid to the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order of the Appeal Committee the instant writ application was moved before this Court on 3. 2. 75 whereon the instant Rule was issued but no interim order was made.
(3.) Mr. S. B. Bhunia, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has advanced a three-fold submission before this Court. His first submission is that the impugned order by the Appeal Committee is on the face of it illegal and as such it is liable to be-quashed and set aside inasmuch as the Appeal Committee held that the service of the petitioner was terminated and in fact he was removed from his service as he was not appointed for a fixed period. It was further held that in such cases it was necessary on the part of the managing committee to issue a charge sheet against him and consider his reply but these formalities were not observed while dismissing him from service. It-has been next contended by Mr. Bhunia that the procedure prescribed by the Appeal Regulations particularly regulations 6 and 7(1) (b) have not been complied with and as such the decision of the Appeal Committee is not sustainable. It has been thirdly submitted that rule 28 of the Rules framed for Management of Recognized Non Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) 1969 as amended lay down the procedure to be adopted in the matter of removing or dismissing a permanent or temporary teacher of a school under the Board. This procedure is imperative to be complied with and as there has been a non compliance with this mandatory procedure prescribed by the statutory rules the impugned order of dismissal or removal from service or termination from service whatever may be is wholly illegal and unwarranted and as such the order of the Appeal Committee is liable to be quashed and set aside on this found also. Mr. Bhunia has cited some decisions at the Bar in support of his aforesaid submissions.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.