Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) The writ petitioner was a college teacher in Commerce Section of Ram Nagar College and he has been removed from services. He has challenged this impugned order of removal, as well as charge-sheet and of the disciplinary proceeding itself. On or about 12th September, 1994 he was served with a charge-sheet on the allegation of committing various misconduct, namely, unauthorised habitual absence from the duty and conducting himself in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of the academic atmosphere of the college, as well as students, The petitioner replied to the charges, obviously denied the same, therefore, the Governing Body set up an Inquiry Committee, which has submitted a report to the Governing Body. The Governing Body, pursuant to the report of the Committee has removed the petitioner from services.
(2.) The learned lawyer for the petitioner contends that the entire procedure of holding disciplinary proceedings right from the stage of issuance of charge- sheet up to passing of the order of removal is absolutely illegal and contrary to the procedure laid down under Section 9 of the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Services) Act,1975 read with West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Services) Rules, 1977.
(3.) He contends the charge-sheet has not been issued in accordance with the prescribed form being Appendix 'C'. No document relied on by the Governing Body was disclosed in the charge-sheet, nor copies thereof were supplied to the petitioner as such there has been complete breach of natural justice by not adhering to the established procedure. He has cited a decision in support of his submission of Supreme Court reported in (1) AIR 1966 SC 1864. Therefore, he contends, no teacher of the college can be removed without following the mandatory provision of Section 9 sub-section (2) of the aforesaid Act. He contends further that it will appear from the language of sub-section (2) of the said section that enquiry has to be held in the manner prescribed by the Rule. He has drawn my attention to Rule 7 regarding manner of holding disciplinary proceedings and submits that none of the aforesaid procedure as prescribed in Rule 7 has been followed.;