- (1.) An undated order passed by the Administrator (hereafter the 'administrator') of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (hereafter the 'Board'), as communicated by the Deputy Secretary (Administration) of the Board vide memo dated January 07, 2014 to the Secretary of Athpur Bimalamayee Bidyamandir (High) School (hereafter the 'school') is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner, who claims to be the Secretary of the school presently.
(2.) By the impugned order, the administrator held the inquiry that was conducted against the Headmaster of the school, the respondent no. 5, as perfunctory and vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice and latent bias and accordingly, proceeded to decline the proposal of the managing committee for taking disciplinary action against the respondent no.5. In terms of the procedure laid down in the Management Rules for conducting disciplinary proceeding against a delinquent staff and interpretation thereof by the Special Bench of this Court in Arun Kr. Hait vs. State of West Bengal & Ors,1999 1 CalHN 521, the managing committee was under an obligation to draw up a charge -sheet against the respondent no.5, provide him opportunity to reply to the same, to conduct an inquiry for ascertaining as to whether there was any truth in the charges or not by granting opportunity to the respondent no.5 to cross -examine the witnesses produced by the prosecution and to adduce witnesses in his favour, to furnish to the respondent no.5 copy of the inquiry report (if the inquiry officer found him guilty in respect of any or all the charges) providing him opportunity to represent thereagainst and to take a reasoned decision as to whether the charges had been established in course of the inquiry or not. If the charges were found to be established, it was required of the managing committee to obtain approval of the Board before issuance of a show cause notice proposing punishment. This is commonly known as the 'first stage approval'.
(3.) It appears from the materials on record that the managing committee in its meeting held on February 25, 2013 considered the inquiry report dated February 22, 2013 submitted by the inquiry officer and without even extending opportunity to the respondent no. 5 to represent against such report, agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and held that majority of the charges levelled against the respondent no. 5 were found to be proved; accordingly, a notice was issued to the respondent no. 5 to show cause as to why he shall not be dismissed/removed from service. Although it is true that the respondent no.5 showed cause and thereafter the managing committee of the school transmitted its proposal to dismiss the respondent no. 5 from service to the administrator for approval, the observations in the impugned order of the administrator to the effect that the managing committee had not followed the Management Rules and had omitted to obtain approval at the first stage does not require to be interfered with.;