DR NIRANJAN SAHU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
LAWS(CAL)-1996-12-26
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on December 10,1996

Dr Niranjan Sahu Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Respondents




JUDGEMENT

B.P. Banerjee, J. - (1.)This is an appeal against the order and judgment dated December 6. 1994, passed in Civil Order No. 14247(W) of 1994. by the learned Trial Judge, disposing of the writ application along with the application for vacating the interim order. The matter arises in this way. The appellant/petitioner who is the Head Master of Futigoda High School, filed a writ application challenging the validity of the order of suspension and the show -cause notice. while moving the writ application, an interim order of injunction was issued staying the operation of the order of suspension that was passed against the appellant/petitioner. The members of the Managing Committee filed an application for variation and/or vacating the interim order, disposed of the writ application by upholding the submissions made by the respondent members of the Managing Committee that the "relevant rules provide for the action taken by the Managing Committee of the School. The rules, in my view, amply protect the delinquent, at every stage, approval of the Board has to be taken and the School authorities cannot delay the matter having regard to the time frame mentioned in the rule itself.
(2.)The learned Trial Judge, while disposing of the writ application, granted liberty to the Board and the school authority to proceed with the matter in accordance with Law.
(3.)It appears that the Managing Committee had adopted a resolution on August 7, 1993, by appointing a fact finding inquiry committee in respect of certain allegations against the appellant/writ petitioner and that it is stated that the said fact finding inquiry committee had submitted a report to the Managing Committee, and the same was considered in the meeting of the Managing Committee of the School on August 10. 1994, and that it is stated that on consideration of the said report, the Managing Committee issued a notice to the petitioner putting 22 questions to the Appellant/petitioner for answer. It is stated that this was the charge -sheet For illustrating the nature of the charges, it is necessary to highlight the questions that have been framed for answer :
(1) How Physical Education panel of 1994 could be prepared when there was no record of 1997

(2) Why the attendance sheet, academic certificate of the candidates appearing to the said panel were not there ?

(3) Why excess amount was drawn from Salary Account ?

(4) Why resolution book of the school went out and travelled?

(5) On whose advice - -a panel was prepared ?

(6) Why the original papers of the panel were not in the school ?

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.