Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) While considering the application for stay filed in this intra-Court writ appeal, which is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th November, 2016 of a learned Judge of this Court on W.P. 13226(W) of 2016, the parties were heard on the merits of the appeal itself with their consent.
(2.) The short point arising for decision in this writ appeal is, whether the learned Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition and directing the appellants to permit the respondents 1 and 2 (hereafter the writ petitioners) to have the assistance of lawyers in the domestic enquiries they are facing on several charges of misconduct.
(3.) Perusal of the judgment under challenge reveals that disciplinary proceedings having been initiated against the two writ petitioners [who are teachers of the first appellant/school (hereafter the school)] by the management of the school in accordance with the "Rules related to Terms of Employment and Service Conditions of Teaching and Non Teaching Staff of the Convent of Our Lady Providence" (hereafter the service rules) framed by it (the management), they had sought for permission to have lawyers' assistance in course of the domestic enquiries. The management refused the prayer partially by refusing the prayer for lawyers' assistance but the writ petitioners were permitted to take the assistance of their chosen colleagues. This decision of the management was subjected to challenge in the writ petition. In the perception of the learned Judge, the service rules ordained that a staff proceeded against for imposition of a minor penalty shall not have the assistance of a lawyer; however, insofar as initiation of proceedings against a staff for imposition of major penalty is concerned, the service rules are silent. It is because of such silence that the learned Judge inferred that assistance of a lawyer, if sought to be availed of by the staff proceeded against, is not barred either expressly or by necessary implication; hence, there was no bar in permitting the writ petitioners to be assisted by lawyers of their choice. It was, accordingly, held that the management of the school illegally spurned their prayers for having such assistance.;