Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. - (1.) The. appellant before us, Sk. Alauddin, moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 20th July, 1981. The case of the appellant in the said writ application was that the petitioner was a permanent Assistant Teacher of Jafully High School, Midnapore. On 2nd Jan., 1981 when the petitioner went to the School the petitioner did not find the Attendance Register and he was told that the new Attendance Register would be made available next day; when the petitioner went to the School, it is alleged that the Headmaster told him that after a meeting with the villagers to be held on 4th Jan., 1981 the petitioner would be informed as to whether the petitioner would be allowed to sign the Attendance Register or not. On 5th January, 1981, the Headmaster informed the petitioner that he could not allow the petitioner to sign in the Attendance Register because of the pressure of the villagers. The Headmaster also refused to pay the salary to the petitioner for the month of Dec., 1980, although such salary had been paid to all other teachers. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote a letter to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Midnapore requesting him to take necessary steps so that the petitioner might sign the Teacher's Attendance Register and get his salary for the month of December, 1980. In response to the said letter of the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Midnapore by his letter D/-29th Jan., 1981 directed the Headmaster to send a report to him on the allegations made by the petitioner that he was not allowed to sign the attendance register, nor his salary for the month of December, 1980 was paid. The Headmaster was also advised that after the petitioner attended the School he should not be prevented from putting his signature in the Attendance Register and he should be paid his salary. In spite of the said direction from the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Midnapore it is alleged that the petitioner was not allowed to put his signature in the attendance register or take classes though the petitioner attended the School as usual. It is alleged that the petitioner wrote a number of letters to the Secretary and Headmaster of the School requesting them to allow him to sign in the Teacher's attendance register and take his classes, but neither the Headmaster nor the Secretary paid any heed to the requests made by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Assistant Inspector of Schools (S.E.) by his letter No. 1459-S/2 D/- 22-4-81 informed the Secretary of the School that pursuant to the direction of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Midnapore, he would hold an enquiry on 28th April, 1981 at 8 a.m. in the School premises on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner. A copy of the said letter was sent to the Headmaster of the School as well as to the petitioner requesting them to remain present in the enquiry with their papers, documents and evidence. The said Assistant Inspector of Schools (S.E.) held an enquiry on 28th April, 1981 and sent a report containing his findings to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) on 4th May, 1981. In the said report the Assistant Inspector of Schools (S.E.) had stated that there was an allegation against the petitioner that he has some affairs with a Hindu widow. The teachers and the students who were present at the time of enquiry had said that the petitioner was absent from the School since 2nd January, 1981, whereas the people belonging to the Muslim Community said that the petitioner had been attending the School regularly, but the Headmaster did not allow him to sign the register. The persons belonging to the Muslim Community also submitted a representation to the Assistant Inspector of Schools at the time of enquiry. On the day when the enquiry was held on 28th April, 1981, although the Headmaster gave the attendance register to the petitioner for recording his signature, one Patit Paban Bera did not allow him to do so. It was also reported by the Assistant Inspector of Schools that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 2nd December, 1980 and the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges brought against him. The managing committee allegedly was not satisfied with the explanation and took a decision at the meeting held on 12th April, 1981 to issue another show cause notice. At the date when the enquiry was held by the Assistant Inspector of Schools such show cause notice was not received by the petitioner. After going through the Attendance register and other evidence, the Assistant Inspector of Schools found that from Jan., 1980 to Dec., 1980 the petitioner was absent in the school for 80 days as against the total working days of 244. Although he applied for leave of absence, the nature of leave was not mentioned. It was recommended that the petitioner should be allowed leave according to the Leave Rules if he mentions the nature of the leave, otherwise leave of absence for 80 days should be treated as leave without pay. After considering the evidence the Assistant Inspector of Schools found that there was no specific charge against the petitioner. The blame or charge as brought against him regarding his loose character is vague. The report, inter alia, stated as follows : The Headmaster has become the prey of the Committee and the local guardians. Though he gave the attendance register on 28-4-81 to sign in my presence he did not allow Sk. Alauddin to sign under public pressure. In my opinion, the charges brought against him are concocted and vague. The School authority may be directed to allow Sk. Alauddin to work in the School and arrangements may be taken for payment of his salary as admissible as per rules. Sk. Alauddin may also be directed to be regular in his attendance in the School."
(2.) In spite of the said report, no action was taken and the Headmaster of the School did not allow the petitioner to put his signature in the attendance register and did not give him his salaries. On 24th June, 1981, the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.) Midnapore directed the Secretary of the School as follows:- In connection with the matter of Sk. Alauddin, Assistant Teacher of his School, the undersigned has to request him to see if the absence of the teacher from school duty be regularised by sanctioning leave on submission of necessary explanation by the teacher of his frequent absence. As Sk. Alauddin is attending School now he may be allowed to put signature in attendance register for the period of his presence without adopting any disciplinary action against him as per rules if there be sufficient ground for taking such action school authority cannot restrain him from putting signature in attendance register if he attends his duty." The District Inspector of Schools (S. E-) also wrote to the petitioner on 24th June, 1981 to the following effect:- In connection with the above the undersigned has to inform him that the enquiry report and the report of the Head master of the School reveal that he is very irregular in his duty and he has been frequently absenting himself from School duty. His prayers for leave do not show the nature and period of leave prayed for. As a result the Managing Committee could not sanction leave for his absence. He may be-treated as on duty only when he attends meetings of Panchayat. But the report reveals that he was absent for 80 days, out of 244 working days in 1980. His such frequent absence from duty may hamper the education of the pupils and the interest of the school. If in such situation the School authority takes any disciplinary action against him the undersigned has nothing to do. However, the School authority has been requested to regularise his absence by sanctioning leave obtaining necessary explanation for his such absence and to allow him to put signature in Teacher's Attendance Register during the period of his presence in school duty. He may contact the School authority accordingly. 19-6-81. Sd/-District Inspector of Schools (S. E.) Midnapore." Thus the grievance of the appellant in the writ application was that he regularly attended the School but he was not allowed to sign the attendance register nor was he paid his salary. Accordingly the appellant moved the said writ application on 28th July, 1981, inter alia, praying that the District Inspector of Schools should be commanded to direct the Headmaster and the Secretary of the School to allow the petitioner to put his signature in the attendance register and to pay his salaries up to date.
(3.) The said application was ultimately disposed of on 18th May, 1983 by Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. by the following order:- The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that in spite of the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.) Midnapore, the authorities of lawfully High School are not allowing the petitioner to attend the school nor he has been paid his salaries. In such circumstances, the petitioner prays for appropriate writs against the office bearers of the School. The law is now well settled that no writ lies against the members of the managing this writ jurisdiction, no writ can be issued against those members. In such circumstances, I am unable to allow the prayer of the petitioner. But then the District Inspector of Schools and for that matter the other authorities have adequate powers under the law to take action against any managing committee if they violate their legal and valid orders. The petitioner, therefore, may move the authorities and if the authorities are so moved, they may also take action in accordance with law against the recalcitrant members of the managing committee, if the allegations of the petitioner are true. With this observation, I dispose of the writ application. Sd/- Monoj Kumar Mukherjee.";