SOUMEN SEN, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 17th April, 2019 by which the order of termination was found to be unjust and exceptionable. The writ petition was disposed of by directing the authorities to reinstate the writ petitioner in service forthwith with all arrear and current benefits. The writ petitioner was initially appointed in 2007 and after completion of the provisional period was appointed as a permanent teacher in the year 2008 and she worked as a teacher till 2012 until her service was terminated by a communication dated 28th December, 2012. While we agree with the finding of the learned Trial Judge that the letter of termination should go but for a different reason.
(2.) Shortly put, the allegation against the teacher appears to be that she participated in demonstration during the school hours and it had disrupted the functioning of the school. Although, there is no such clear mentioning of illegal activities by her but from the letter of termination dated 28th December, 2012, the reason for termination on such ground is discernible. The Managing Committee appears to have taken a decision on 16th December, 2012 to terminate the service of the writ petitioner without giving any opportunity to the writ petitioner to present her case against such order of termination. Moreover, the service of the teacher was terminated in breach of Rule 16(b) and Rule 21 of the Service Rules of St. Teresa's Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as the "School"). Rule 16(b) of the said Rules reads as follows:- "16. Termination of Service, b) Only the Managing Committee shall have the authority to terminate the service of permanent staff confirmed in service upon three month's notice in writing or on payment of three month's salary in lieu of notice." Rule 21 contemplates the procedure to be followed for imposing major penalties. It is trite law that the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding is with the issuance and service of the charge-sheet. Admittedly, no articles of charges have been framed nor communicated to the writ petitioner thereby giving an opportunity to the writ petitioner to make her representation against the charges that may be levelled against her by the school authorities. It appears that the school authorities had proceeded on the basis of a letter dated 17th December, 2012 followed by a further letter dated 19th December, 2012 where apparently the writ petitioner had admitted her guilt and, according to the school authorities by reason of such admission, there is no necessity to initiate any disciplinary proceeding. The writ petitioner has stated in the writ petition that she was made to write the said letter along with thirty other teachers similarly placed with a hope that the relationship between the management and the teachers would improve and the management would not act in a vindictive manner and would not victimize the teachers who were demanding pay hike. Even if it is assumed that there is no 'apology letter', the fact remains that on 16th December, 2012, the Managing Committee could not have been taken a decision of termination of the writ petitioner without following the rules as stated above. Even if one assumes that there is a letter of apology, the circumstances under which the said apology letter was issued, is another matter need be assessed and adjudicated upon.
(3.) Although, Mr. Soumya Majumder, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that the said letter of 17th December, 2012 followed by the letter dated 19th December, 2012 are clear acknowledgement of the illegal demonstration by the appellants and can be treated as an admission on the basis of which the Managing Committee could have acted. We are unable to accept such submission as it appears that excepting eight teachers who had signed jointly "a letter of apology" dated 17th December, 2012 all other teachers have been exonerated in the service that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against any one of them.;