- (1.) Though this case has a long chequered history but presently this Court need not discuss the details of the earlier litigation between the parties as presently this Court is concerned only with the legality of the order by which the proposal of the school authority to keep the petitioner under suspension pending drawal of the disciplinary proceeding against him was disapproved by the Section 24 Committee. The petitioner is the Headmaster of Gustia Kshetra Nath High School (S.E.), Kolkata. The school authority adopted a resolution on 3 rd August, 2009 for placing the petitioner under suspension pending drawal of a disciplinary proceeding on several charges such as:- (i) dereliction of duty; (ii) misuse of power; (iii) in subordination of Managing Committee and (iv) defalcation of school fund. In terms of the said resolution, the Secretary of the said school, by his letter dated 4 th August, 2009 placed the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect, pending drawal of a disciplinary proceeding against him, for the interest of the institution. By an order passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 23 rd December, 2010 in W.P. No. 24652(W) of 2010, which was heard analogously with W.P. No. 15352(W) of 2010, the Section 24 Committee of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, was directed to decide as early as possible but not latter than six weeks from the date of receipt of the said order, the issue relating to approval of the resolution adopted for suspending the petitioner, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the administrator of the said school. While passing the above direction His Lordship made it clear that the petitioner shall continue to remain under suspension till such time the Committee decides the issue in terms of the direction as mentioned above with a rider that if the proposal for suspension is not approved, the petitioner shall be allowed to resume duties as Headmaster. It was further directed that, on the contrary, if the proposal is approved, the petitioner shall continue to remain under suspension till conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings against him. His Lordship further made it clear that His Lordship s said direction will not foreclose his right to question the order of the Committee, if so advised.
(2.) Pursuant to the above direction passed by His Lordship, the school s proposal for keeping the petitioner under suspension pending drawal of the disciplinary proceedings was considered by the Committee which ultimately disapproved the said proposal of the school authority with a prima facie observation that the charges of defalcation labeled against the petitioner had not been substantiated with the documents submitted by the school authority.
(3.) The legality of the said order of the Section 24 Committee is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the administrator of the school. Let me now consider as to how far the Section 24 committee was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. I have already indicated above that the Headmaster was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. Though at the relevant time charges were not finally framed and the memorandum of charges was not given to him for his reply but the resolution of the school, on the basis of which such suspension order was issued, clearly indicates the charges which the school authority intended to frame against the said Headmaster. No doubt the defalcation of school fund was one of the allegations but there were other allegations against the Headmaster; such as (I) dereliction of duties, (ii) misuse of power and (iii) in subordination to the Managing Committee. ;