Basudeva Panigrahi, J. - (1.) C.O. No. 10916(W) of 1986 and C. R. No. 3428(W) of 1982, in both the matters since the parties are same and the subject matters involved therein appears to be similar, therefore, they were heard together and have been disposed of hereunder.
(2.) The writ petitioner after having been qualified by obtaining M.A.B.T. Degree, joined in the service of Pandura Radharani Girls High School in the post of headmistress with effect from 1.8.1972 and was discharging her duties and responsibilities properly and efficiently as headmistress. As such, the petitioner was entrusted to see the internal management of the school viz. the academic sides of the school The financial transaction of the school was used to be dealt with by the Secretary of the School. The accounts of the School was used to be maintained by the clerks concerned and the receipts and payments were used to be maintained by him. The accounts of the school therefore, were jointly maintained by the Secretary and Joint Secretary of the school. The petitioner has claimed in this case that the headmistress of the school had little scope in the matter of financial transaction. In case of any financial irregularities in the audit report and/or in the financial transaction of the school the director might call for explanation from the committee and the committee ought to submit its explanation for such defects noticed in the audit report.
(3.) There was no problem till the elected managing committee remained in charge of the management. It was superseded by the order of Board with effect from 10th August, 1979. The respondent No. 2 was entrusted with the duties of the managing committee as administrator. The petitioner who was acting as the headmistress of the school sometimes used to write against the respondent No. 2 about his administrative lapses. Therefore, it appeared that he was entertaining bias and prejudice against the petitioner with a view to punish her. The erstwhile managing committee challenged the illegal supersession in Civil Rule 10106(W) of 1979 where this Court presided by Mr. Sabyasachi Mukherjee, J. (as he then was) passed an order that since the administrator had already resumed charge he would function as such subject to that he would not initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the teaching and non-teaching staff and also not appoint any permanent teaching and non-teaching staff without the leave of the Court. The respondent No. 2 had, however, prayed for an order to initiate departmental proceeding when the Court had asked him to take steps as early as possible for holding the election of members of the managing committee. But, however, the managing committee was not constituted. After great persuasion of the petitioner and other teaching and non-teaching staff, the respondent No. 2 was, rather, compelled to fix the date of election. Few attempts were made to stultify such election, therefore, a suit was filed and some interlocutory orders were passed thereunder. Although the respondent No.21 was prohibited from initiating any departmental proceeding against the petitioner, he had issued the order of suspension, charge-sheet etc. with a sole view to cause harassment to the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner filed an application in this Court challenging the order of suspension.;