- (1.) THOUGH this case has a long chequered history, but presently it will be suffice to note that the disciplinary proceeding which was initiated by the Managing Committee of the Behala Shyamasundari Vidyapith against the Headmistress of the said school namely the petitioner herein in 1995 has not yet been concluded despite direction was given by the Division Bench of this Honourable Court on 5th October, 2005 in APOT No. 346 of 2005 for conclusion of the said proceeding by 31st December, 2005 by a new enquiry officer. The time limit which was so fixed by the Division Bench of this Honourable Court for conclusion of the said disciplinary proceeding was subsequently extended by an order passed by the said Division Bench of this Honourable Court on 1st March, 2006, whereby a further extension was granted for a period of two months on condition that the school pays the full salary to the concerned teacher. While granting such extension the said Division Bench directed that the enquiry should be conducted under a changed enquiry officer with a further rider that the extension was being made finally.
(2.) DESPITE such mandatory direction was passed by the Honourable Court, the said disciplinary proceeding was not concluded even within the extended time. Ultimately, on the prayer of the school authority the other Division Bench of this Honourable Court further extended the time limit for conclusion of the said proceeding with a direction to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible but within one year from the date of the said order. Since the said order was passed on 20th February, 2008, the authorities concerned were required to conclude the said proceeding by 19th February, 2009. The relevant part of the said order is set out:- "Now having regard to the fact that there is a lengthy procedure inaugurated by the board in terms of the circular dated 21st June, 1982 wherein the Managing Committee has no hand to complete the departmental proceeding, we are entertaining the application to modify the earlier order by directing that the departmental proceeding to be completed as expeditiously as possible but within one year from this date in terms of the circular letter of the board dated 21st June, 1982 and the Managing Committee and the Board both are directed to take all steps in the matter as expeditiously as possible to complete such departmental proceeding. The Board is accordingly directed to decide the issue of approval of the first stage of departmental proceeding which is still pending before the Board within a month from the date of communication of this order to the Managing Committee of the School. The Managing Committee of the School upon receipt of the board"s approval, if any, is allowed to proceed with the second stage following the said circular letter. Considering that we are allowing prayers (a) and (b) on deleting the word "alternatively" as mentioned in prayer (b)." In fact, the school authority also sought for modification and/or variation of the direction passed by the earlier Division Bench of this Honourable Court on 20th February, 2008 regarding payment of full salary to the petitioner which was a condition imposed by the said Division Bench of this Honourable Court upon the school authority for extending the time for conclusion of the said disciplinary proceeding. While dealing with the said application of the school authority the Division Bench of this Honourable Court refused to consider such prayer of the school authority on the ground of jurisdictional restraint. Their Lordships, however, was pleased to observe that the Managing Committee of the said school would be at liberty to file an appropriate application seeking review of the portion of the order of the earlier Division Bench of this Honourable Court whereby the school authorities were directed to pay full salary to the petitioner. Fact remains that the school authority has not filed any application seeking review of the order passed by the earlier Division Bench regarding payment of full salary to the petitioner. As such the said direction became final and is, thus, binding upon the school authorities. The school authorities, however, has not complied with the said direction of the Division Bench of this Honourable Court regarding payment of full salary to the petitioner during the pendency of the said disciplinary proceeding. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the school authority, however, informs this Court that his clients have paid the full salary to the petitioner for two months only as according to them, as per the direction of the earlier Division Bench of this Honourable Court, they were required to pay full salary to the petitioner during the extension period of two months. This Court cannot accept such contention of Mr. Chatterjee as if the said order is considered in its true spirit, then it goes without saying that they were required to pay full salary during the continuation of the said disciplinary proceeding. Even the school authority also interpreted the said order in such manner, and as such the school authorities not only felt the necessity to get the said direction modified by this Court but in fact they did so by filing an application before the subsequent Division Bench, seeking modification of the said order. As such they cannot avoid their liability to pay full salary to the petitioner during the period of her suspension. Mr. Chatterjee informs this Court that the petitioner is being regularly paid her subsistence allowance by his clients till date. The other important fact which is required to be noted here is that the school authority has not applied for any further extension of time for conclusion of the said disciplinary proceeding; though the ultimate time limit which was fixed for conclusion of the said disciplinary proceeding expired on 19th February, 2009.
(3.) IN this context a question has cropped up as to whether the school authority can continue with the said disciplinary proceeding after 19th February, 2009. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate, appearing for the school authority tried to justify his client"s conduct by submitting that his client has concluded the entire exercise which his client was required to do at the first stage of the disciplinary proceeding within the extended time limit fixed by the Division Bench of this Honourable Court. He pointed out that after holding an enquiry at the first stage of disciplinary proceeding, his client placed all the materials before the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for its approval. He further submitted that since the Board has not intimated its decision in this regard to his client, his client could not proceed further. He, thus, contended that his client cannot be blamed for the delay in concluding the disciplinary proceeding as it is the Board which is responsible for the delay and for the default on the part of the Board, his client cannot be restrained from continuing with the said proceeding even beyond the extended time limit fixed by the Honourable Appeal Court as aforesaid.;