Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the authority of the school dated February 2, 2006 suspending him from service. At that time he was working as the headmaster of the institute.
(2.) Case of the petitioner is that without giving any opportunity of showing cause the order of suspension was issued. His further case is that it was not issued in contemplation of any disciplinary proceedings. He has alleged that the order was issued by the managing committee of the institute in colourable exercise of its powers conferred on it by provisions in Rule 28 (vii a) of the Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Un-aided) Rules, 1969. Counsel contends that since the proceedings were not drawn within 90 days from the date of suspension, in view of provisions in R. 28(vii a) the order of suspension must be deemed to have been automatically stood withdrawn.
(3.) By filing opposition and a supplementary opposition the authority of the institute has stated that the decision to suspend the petitioner was taken in the meeting held on February 1, 2006, since he had not been responding to the allegations made in the charge-sheet sent to him previously. It was noted in the resolution that the petitioner had refused to receive the registered letter containing the charge-sheet. The managing committee decided to suspend the petitioner in the interest of the institute. It is apparent on the face of the resolution that it has decided to inquire into the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet.;