- (1.) SINCE both these writ petitions are interrelated to each other, both the writ petitions have been taken up for hearing analogously. First of such writ petitions, being W.P. No. 6776(W) of 2011, was filed by a suspended non-teaching staff of Satyabharati Vidyapith in the District of North 24 Parganas. The legality of the suspension order, by which the said non-teaching staff was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding, is under challenge in the said writ petition at the instance of the said suspended non-teaching staff. It is contended by him that the charges, for which he was placed under suspension by the present Managing Committee of the said school, were identical to the charges which were brought against him earlier by the Administrator of the said school. But on receipt of the petitioners reply to the said charges, the Administrator exonerated the petitioner from those charges and withdrew the charges framed against the petitioner by his letter dated 23rd August, 2010. It is, thus, contended that when he has already been exonerated by the Administrator of the said school, the present Managing Committee cannot suspend him once again by bringing identical charges against him.
(2.) BE that as it may; fact remains that during the pendency of this writ petition the impugned order of suspension was disapproved by the Committee constituted under Section 24 of the West BEngal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 as the said Committee was of the view that the presence of the petitioner in school will not affect the independent enquiry to be initiated against him by the school authority. The Boards decision for disapproval of the order of suspension was communicated to the school authority by the Board vide its letter dated 20th may, 2011 during the pendency of this writ petition. The other writ petition being W.P. No. 12698(W) of 2011 was filed by the school authority challenging the Boards decision for disapproval of the order of suspension of the said non-teaching staff. The said non-teaching staff has been impleaded as respondent no.8 in the said writ petition. The said respondent is also contesting the said writ petition. Since the order of suspension has been disapproved by the Board, the cause of action on which the first writ petition was founded has now become extinct and the reliefs which the petitioner claimed in the said writ petition have practically become infructuous as the relief which the petitioner, in fact, sought for in the said writ petition, was granted to him by the Board by disapproving the order of suspension during the pendency of the writ petition. The said writ petition is, thus, disposed of as the same has now become infructuous with this observation that this order will not preclude him from supporting the said decision of the Board which is impugned in the other writ petition filed by the school authority as mentioned above. Now, let me consider the merit of the second writ petition in the facts of the instant case.
(3.) THE respondent no.8 was placed under suspension at a point of time when the disciplinary proceeding was not initiated against him. THE said respondent was placed under suspension as the school authority wanted to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against him on the following charges:- (i) Behavious of the said clerk is unbecoming for the institution; (ii) Defalcation of school fund; (iii) Dereliction of duties; Since defalcation of school fund was one of the charges against the respondent no.8, this Court is of the view that if the said respondent is allowed to join his service, he will get access to the official records of the said institution and if he gets access to such schools record, chances of tampering the official records and/or destroying the evidence relating to the charge of defalcation of the suspended employee, cannot be avoided. Thus, this Court cannot agree with the conclusion of the Board to the effect that his presence in the school may not affect independent enquiry to be initiated against him. In my view, allowing such an employee against whom a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated on the charge of defalcation of the school fund amongst others, will be prejudicial to the enquiry to be initiated by the school authority against such an employee for the reason as recorded above.;