Pratap Kr. Ray, J. - (1.) Both the above writ petitions are taken up together.
(2.) In the writ petition No. 21034(W) of 2000, the petitioner has prayed for : (a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their officers and subordinates : (i) to cancel/withdraw/rescind/forbear the order of approval of discharge from service of the petitioner which is annexure 'V' to the writ petition and also the order of initiation of process for appointment of new Head Master in Mahabala Ojja High Madrasah which is Annexure 'W' to the writ petition forthwith; (ii) clear off the release all arrears of salaries accrued so far since April, 1988 within a period of one month from the date of order with multiple interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date arrears started accumulates till the date of final payment and such payment of salaries be made after allowing the petitioner the new scale including of all increments; (iii) to treat and accept the Annexure 'R' series of this application as records maintained as per Rules and to treat the entire period as on service; (iv) to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties as headmaster and to sign in the attendance register; (b) a writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to transmit and certify to his Hon'ble Court all the records of the case before them to be in this Court dealt with so that conscionable justice may be done to the petitioner in terms of prayers (a). (c) any other order or orders and direction or directions upon such of the respondents to explain their stand and conduct taken by them in the instant case. In the writ petition No. W.P. 18566(W) of 1993 the petitioner has prayed for (a) a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their officers and sub-ordinates. (i) to cancel, withdraw, rescind and forbear the order of suspension, charge-sheet and approval to the order of suspension which are annexure 'J' and 'T' to this application and not to act thereunder or proceed any further; (ii) clear off and release all arrears of salaries accrued so far since April, 1988 within a period of one month from the date of order with multiple interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date arrears started accumulating till the date of final payment and such payment of salaries be made after allowing the petitioner the new scale inclusive of all increments; (iii) to treat and accept the Annexure 'B' series of this application as records maintained as per Rules and to treat the entire period as on service; (iv) to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties as Headmaster and to sign in the attendance register; (b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to supersede the managing committee and to appoint Administrator with the direction to reconstitute the Managing Committee in accordance with law and further commanding the respondents to treat all decision and/or resolution taken by this committee since it came to power; (c) a writ in the nature of Certiorari directing respondents to transmit and certify to this Hon'ble Court all the records of the case before them to be in this Court dealt with so that conscionable justice may be done to the petitioner in terms of prayers (a) and (b) above. The writ application of the year 1993 relates to the challenge of the order of suspension, charge-sheet and approval of the order of suspension with consequential benefits for releasing of all arrear salaries since April, 1988. In the writ application of 2000 it is the grievance of the petitioner that the school authorities are going to appoint a new Headmaster after discharging him from service. In the writ application of 2000 the impugned order is the decision of the District Inspector of Schools concerned dated 16th November, 2000. From the impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools concerned it appears that the petitioner was heard with reference to the grievance about grant of prior permission to appoint Headmaster in the school in the post as was held by the petitioner prior to his discharge from service with effect from 21st November, 1993. By the impugned decision the District Inspector of Schools concerned has allowed the school authorities to proceed with the appointment issue by holding that the petitioner was not eligible to occupy the post as the discharge order dated 21st November, 1993 as passed and duly approved, was legal and valid on the basis of the documents submitted by the University of Burdwan contending, inter alia, that the M.A. (Bengali) examination in which the petitioner appeared under Roll No. Bur BN 85, Registration No 3271 of 1977-78 was cancelled for adoption of unfair means and no Mark Sheet was issued. The fact leading to two writ applications are briefly to this effect.
(3.) The petitioner was originally the Headmaster of Junior Madrasa and due to up-gradation of the said Madrasa to High Madrasa, the petitioner claimed his right to be appointed and approved as Headmaster of the High Madrasa in view of the qualification. M.A., B. Ed. The petitioner disclosed that he passed M.A. Examination in Bengali subject from the University of Burdwan in the year 1977. The petition got approval of service as Headmaster of High Madrasa. Accordingly, he started to enjoy post graduate pay scale. Ultimately, from certain reliable sources it came to the notice of the Managing Committee that the petitioner did not pass M.A. Examination and on enquiry, from the University of Burdwan a communication was made from the Controller of Examination of the said University contending that M.A. Examination of the petitioner was cancelled as the petitioner adopted unfair means and no Mark Sheet was issued. Due to such state of affairs the petitioner was served with a resolution of the Managing Committee whereby the petitioner's service was suspended due to pendency of the departmental proceeding on the charge of misconduct on the fact of forging document, viz., Mark Sheet of M.A. of the year 1977 as a proof that the petitioner passed M.A. in Bengali. The petitioner took time to file a show cause by annexing the duplicate Mark Sheet contending, inter alia, that the original Mark Sheet was lost, but thereafter the petitioner did not participate in the departmental proceeding any more. The order of suspension from service got its usual approval from the Madrasa Board. Due to non-payment of salaries, the petitioner moved earlier two writ petitions and in one such petition being C.O. 13678(W) of 1989, Mohitosh Majumdar, J. and in the other writ petition being C.O. 8111(W) of 1992, K.M. Yusuf, J. directed the school authorities to pay the salaries with liberty to them to proceed with the departmental proceeding on the ground of forging of the University document and thereby to misled the Education Department about the qualification of the petitioner. Relying upon the document of the University as communicated by the Controller of Examination of the University of Burdwan to the school authority, the Managing Committee took decision to discharge the petitioner from service, which got its approval of the Madrasa Board and ultimately, the petitioner was discharged from service with effect from 21st November, 1993 and a communication was made-to that effect. However, it appears that despite this the petitioner moved several writ applications subsequently, claiming his salary, allowances and benefits. It appears from the records of this case that some guardians of respective wards who are student of said Madrasa, moved this writ Court praying for appointment of Headmaster, when the writ Court in W.P. 21100(W) of 1999 by the order dated 12th May, 2000 directed to hear the present petitioner, the school authorities, the writ petitioners therein the teacher-in-charge and the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school on the issue of according prior permission in the vacancy of the post of Headmaster. This was heard, and the impugned decision of the present writ application of the year 2000 was passed by the District Inspector of Schools concerned wherein it was recorded that the petitioner was discharged with effect from 21st November, 1993. By the said decision, school was permitted to fill up the vacancy of the post of Headmaster as held by the earlier by the petitioner. This writ petition has been opposed by the school authorities by filing affidavit contending, inter alia, that the petitioner did not deny the document issued by the Asst. Controller of Examination of the University of Burdwan being the letter dated 16th March, 1988 whereby it was communicated to the school authority that the examination in which the petitioner appeared was cancelled for adopting unfair means and no Mark Sheet was issued for the said examination. It appears that subsequently by another communication dated 15th October, 1993 the Deputy Controller of Examination of the University of Burdwan reechoed the same thing. In the charge-sheet, as referred to while suspending the petitioner the fact of such communication was mentioned being the communication of the Asst. Controller of Examination by his letter dated 16th March, 1988. From the reply it appears that the petitioner did not controvert the contents of the letter of the University, but on the other hand, prayed time to produce the duplicate copy of Mark Sheet. Ultimately, on the basis of the said communication of the University, the Managing Committee took a resolution to discharge the petitioner and the same was approved. Ultimately, the petitioner was discharged from service. It has been contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner in the departmental proceeding and the Special Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case Arun Kumar Hait v. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 1999(1) CHN 521 was not followed. The main thrust of the petitioner in this writ application is that as the departmental proceeding was concluded without following the principle of natural justice and without hearing the petitioner, the entire decision discharging the petitioner from service is de horse of the statutory provision of Rule 28(8) of the Rules of Management of Recognised Non-Government Institution (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the said Management Rules, 1969). Furthermore, the petitioner submitted that departmental proceeding ought to have been kept pending as a criminal proceeding is pending on the identical facts. Reliance has been made to that effect in the case of Husseswar Dubey v. M/s. Bharat Coaking, reported in AIR 1988 SC 2118. For effective adjudication of the matter involving a serious issue whereby the Headmaster of a school has been charged for exercising fraud upon the school authority and the Education Department by production of a fictitious and forged document of M.A. Certificate, this Court wanted to ascertain the real state of affairs and to verify the document as issued by the Controller of Examination, University of Burdwan made him as a party in this proceeding suo motu and the writ application and other document were directed to be served by the  ? petitioner. In response to such, the University Authorities have filed two affidavits, one affirmed on 2nd January, 2003 by Sri Sharosi Mohan Dan, holding the post of Controller of Examination of the University of Burdwan and another supplementary affidavit by the said person affirmed on 17th March, 2003. As per the direction of the Court, the University Authority produced the original documents, namely the bound tabulation book as well as the register in which the records of the examinations are maintained. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to file reply to the opposition and supplementary affidavit filed by the University of Burdwan and also granted leave to inspect the documents. Learned Advocate for the petitioner inspected the documents. However, it appears from the records that the petitioner did not choose to file any reply and/or opposition to the affidavits filed by the University Authority. The documents produced by the University Authority were perused by the learned Advocate for the petitioner and no objection has been put forward with reference to the documents of the University of Burdwan, namely the application form for admission to M.A. Exam as filled up by the petitioner in his own handwriting. The tabulation sheet of M.A. Exam of 1977 of the University of Burdwan is being kept in the bound Register. From the affidavit of the University of Burdwan as well as from the document i.e. the tabulation sheet it appears that the petitioner got his registration No. 3271 of 1977-78 from the University of Burdwan to appear at M.A. Exam in 1977 in Bengali. His Roll No. was Bur BN 85. From the tabulation sheet as maintained in bound copies it appears that the tabulator one Ramendra Kr. Roy on 2nd July, 1979 signed the sheet wherein marks particulars of the examinees concerned under Roll No. Bur BN 81 to 100 have been mentioned. In the column, wherein the petitioner's name is appearing under Roll No. Bur BN 85, it appears that a note "Expelled" has been noted and at the below of that note it is noted to this effect "This candidate, Roll No. Bur BN 85 was actually expelled on the very first day and he did not appear in the subsequent papers. However, we were informed of this by Sri S.B. Bakshi, Asst. Controller of Examination, Burdwan University on 5th July, 1979. Previously he was marked "absent". Because of this, there is slight change in the Statistics". This was signed by Ramendra Kr. Roy on 9th July, 1979. In another bound tabulation sheet book it is noted "further examination of Bur BN85 cancelled as per decision of the Committee of Discipline Ref. C/769(2)/RT dated 1.8.79 of CE with further noting that examination of the petitioner was cancelled". From the documents of the tabulation sheet, (xerox copy of which is in the record) letter of the Controller of Examination dated 1st August, 1979 as addressed to Prof. S.K. Chakraborty, Department of Mathematics, Burdwan University and Prof. R.K. Roy, Burdwan University relating to the action of the Committee of Discipline, vide letter No. C/286(5)/RA dated 27th July, 1979, it appears that the entire examination of Bur BN85 (M.A. Exam in Bengali 1977) and Bur S29 (M.A. Exam in Sanskrit 1977) of the respective candidates were cancelled. In this letter direction was given to show their said results in the tabulation sheet. Another letter dated 27th January, 1979, issued by the Controller of Examinations, addressed to the Head of the Department of Bengali and Sanskrit of the Burdwan University also have been produced wherefrom it appears that the entire M.A. Examination, 1977 of the Candidate Roll No. Bur BN 85 (Bengali) and Bur S 29 (Sanskrit) were cancelled as such candidates were expelled from examinations. The xerox copies of the documents have been directed to be kept on record On perusal of the affidavits of Burdwan University, accordingly it appears that the petitioner was expelled for adopting unfair means in the M.A. Exam in 1977 and accordingly, there was no scope for issuing any Mark Sheet. However, it appears that the petitioner produced duplicate Mark Sheet wherein Roll No. Bur BN 89 is noted. The document regarding application of the candidate holding Roll No. Bur BN 89 has been produced by the University wherefrom it appears that the candidate's name holding Roll No. Bur BN 89 for the M.A. Exam in 1977 in Bengali  ? is Niharendu Nandy and he was absent on the respective dates of the examination. It is surprising that the petitioner produced a duplicate Mark Sheet bearing Roll No. Bur BN 89 which belonged to one Sri Nandi as already referred to and who was absent from the said examination. Since there was no denial with reference to contention made in the affidavit of the University and no opposition has been made with reference to original records of the tabulation sheet as kept and maintained by the University in due discharge of duty and which relates to the year back of 1977, this Court is of the view that the petitioner forged the Mark Sheet of M.A. in Bengali of the year 1977 and produced a forged Mark Sheet of other candidate who even did not appear in the said examination and thereby claimed the same as of his Mark Sheet. In that view of the matter, the decision of the Managing Committee relying upon the letter of the Asst. Controller of Examination that the petitioner was expelled from the examination and no Mark Sheet was issued, is legal and valid. Even if for argument's sake it is assumed that lengthy procedures of hearing in terms of the judgment of the Special Bench as relied upon by the petitioner was not granted to the petitioner, but from the documents as placed and as has been proved, this Court feels that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this writ application for the said reason. It is a settled law now that the departmental proceeding cannot be encompassed in tight jacket of natural justice principle. The right steps were taken by the concerned authorities to adjudicate upon the misconduct of the delinquent. Furthermore, it is a settled law that in a departmental proceeding preponderance of probabilities is sufficient enough to impose punishment on the ground of misconduct. Since the document of University as was referred to by the Asst. Controller of Examination long back in the year 1978 neither was challenged by the petitioner in his reply of show cause notice. On the contrary, the petitioner wanted to produce the duplicate Mark Sheet of another absentee candidate by forging the same again, this Court feels that even if the petitioner was not heard at full length, the same has not vitiated the departmental proceeding. Furthermore, post facto determination of the issue has already been done by this Court by directing the University Authority to produce their records. The documents have been inspected by the petitioner through his learned Advocate. No objection has been made about the said documents and in that view of the matter, the writ Court will be slow to interfere with the impugned decision discharging the petitioner from service. It is also a settled law that writ Court will adjudicate upon a case where the petitioner will come with clean hands. It is established in this writ proceeding now that the petitioner even intended to mislead this Court by annexing duplicate copy of the Mark Sheet in his affidavit, which was a forged document. ;