Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) THE petitioner herein was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Shree Balkrishna Vithalnath Vidyalaya. The appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the said school was approved by the concerned District Inspector of School on 29th October, 1986, with effect from 21st January, 1986. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed as Teacher -in -Charge of the said school on temporary basis by the then Administrator of the said school vide his letter dated 2nd April, 2008. He remained the Teacher -in -Charge of the said school till 17th November, 2008. The charge of the Assistant Teacher of the said school was taken over from him by the newly appointed Teacher -in -Charge on 17th November, 2008. Thereafter the petitioner started working as an Assistant Teacher of the said school with effect from 18th November, 2008.
(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 18th December, 2008 pending disposal of the disciplinary proceeding against him. In fact, a charge -sheet was issued on 16th March, 2009 by the Administrator of the said school which was received by the petitioner on 20th March, 2009. An Enquiry officer and a Presenting officer were also appointed for holding inquiry against the petitioner on various charges indicated therein which are as follows: (1) From the Cash Book the period from 1.4.2008 to 24.10.2008 it appears that there was no Opening Balance and Closing Balance. Accordingly the petitioner being the T.I.C. should be held guilty of dereliction of duty. - -Annexure -I. (2) From the Cash Book as aforesaid it also appears that some pages of the said Cash Book are left blank. Thus the petitioner being the T.I.C. should be held guilty of dereliction of duty. - -Annexure -II. (3) It reveals from the receipts given to large number of students that during the period while the petitioner was T.I.C., fees were collected from the students but such collection had neither been recorded in the daily collection book nor been recorded in the Ledger or Cash Book. Thus the petitioner should be held guilty of monetary defalcation. - -Annexure -III. (4) Though the petitioner had taken charge on 2.4.2008 but he did not take any step for auditing the accounts of school. Accordingly the petitioner should be held guilty for dereliction of duty. (5) Though the petitioner spent a lot of money during the period when he worked as T.I.C. and prepared Vouchers in support of such alleged expenditure, but none of such vouchers bears the signature of the petitioner. Thus the petitioner should be held guilty for defalcation of Rs. 2,00,000/ - approx. - -Annexure -IV. (6) Although the petitioner handed over the charge of Teacher -in -Charge on 19th November, 2008; but he kept the school fund in Cash with him. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 32,189/ - (Rupees thirty two thousand one hundred eighty nine) only in school Bank account through Dinesh Singh on 20th November, 2008. This fact was not disclosed by the petitioner at a time of handing over the charge of T.I.C. to the newly appointed T.I.C. - -Annexure -V. (7) In the report submitted by finance committee of the school, it is found that a sum of Rs. 7,92,869/ - (Rupees seven lakhs ninety two thousand eight hundred sixty nine only) was mis -utilized by the petitioner. - - Annexure -VI. (8) It is very much surprising that the petitioner allowed an unapproved clerk Mr. Brijesh Upadhyaya (now dismissed) to sign over red mark (Dated from 2nd May, 2008 to 14th May, 2008). Thus the petitioner should be held guilty of mis -management, and dereliction of duty. - - Annexure -VII. (9) There were 120 files (one hundred twenty files) in the school record. The petitioner handed over only a few files to the newly appointed T.I.C. at the time of handing over the charge to him by retaining a large number of important files with him. Thus the petitioner should be held guilty of dereliction of duty. - -Annexure -VIII. (10) The petitioner has not signed over the admission form of Class -XI (students who were admitted during the period when he was the T.I.C. of the said school). Thus the petitioner should be held guilty of dereliction of duty. - -Annexure -IX. (11) It is also found that when the petitioner was T.I.C., approved staffs were not allotted minimum class in a week and a lot of payments were made to part -time teacher. Thus the petitioner should be held guilty of misuse of school fund. - -Annexure -X. (12) It is found that the petitioner has not even signed over the registration form of students (School copy). Thus the petitioner should be held guilty of dereliction of duty. - -Annexure -XI. (13) That from the answer script in the subject of accountancy of Class -XI having Roll No. 31, registration number 01190 - 0177 for the year of 2007 -2008 it reveals that the said student was awarded 21 marks (Twenty one marks only), but in the Mark Sheet the petitioner has manipulated said number by striking out 21 and by putting 31 with his signature. The petitioner declared the said unsuccessful student as successful in Class -XI examination conducted by West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education and sent the said manipulated mark -sheet to the H.S. Council and allowed the said student to admit in Class -XII, with such manipulated Mark Sheet. The petitioner replied to these charges, mentioned in the charge -sheet on 23rd August, 2010. The said departmental proceeding is now pending in this preliminary stage of enquiry.
(3.) SIMULTANEOUSLY with the initiation of the said disciplinary proceeding by the Administrator of the said school, a criminal case has also been initiated by the very same Administrator of the said school against the petitioner alleging commission of offence by him under Sections 406, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. In fact, the charges which were labelled against him in the departmental proceeding were also reproduced in the said complain case before the learned Magistrate.;