Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) The petitioner is questioning the order of the Chairman, Ad hoc Committee, District Primary Council, Howrah dated December 7th, 1998 suspending him with effect from October 8th, 1998 when he was taken into custody in connection with Bantra P.S. Case No. 80/1998 dated October 8th, 1998 registered under section 498A/326/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
(2.) At the relevant point of time he was working as head teacher in Dharmatala Prathamik Vidyalaya, Howrah. Since he was arrested and taken into custody, in exercise of power available under r. 14 of the Recruitment Rules, 1940 the competent authority of the council decided to suspend him. That rule conferred power on the appointing authority to place a teacher of a primary school under suspension during progress of investigation or pendency of trial of a case involving criminal offence. There is no dispute that at the date the impugned order of suspension was made the case registered by the police station concerned was at the investigation stage.
(3.) It is therefore clear that the authority issuing the order of suspension possessed the requisite power to issue it. The ground on which it has been assailed is that the discretionary power conferred by the rule was not fairly and reasonably cxercised by the authority. It has been argued that till May 31st, 2005, when the petitioner reached the age of superannuation, the authority did not initiate any disciplinary proceedings. On the strength of two single bench decisions of this court in Basudev Mallick v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2004 (1) CHN 33 and Sk. Ayub Ali v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2005 (1) CLJ 362, counsel argues that the suspension order, issued for involvement in a criminal case that had nothing to do with the discharge of duties by the petitioner as teacher, and kept in force for an indefinite period without initiating any disciplinary proceedings, is liable to be set aside.;