S.B. Sinha J. - (1.) The writ Petitioner-Appellant was appointed as a Headmaster at Harinarayan Chak Vidyamandir (hereinafter referred to as the School). Allegedly on the ground that he had defalcated a huge amount, a criminal case was instituted against him. Allegedly he absconded with effect from February 25, 1976. However, according to the Petitioner, he was prevented from joining the school. He preferred an appeal before the Appeal Committee on August 29, 1979 constituted under the provisions of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 which was registered as Appeal No. 89 of 1979. At that point of time, an administrator appointed by the Board was running affairs of the school. The Petitioner has contended that he was also advised by the then Secretary of the School by a letter dated March 10, 1976 not to come to the School unless the situation becomes normal as otherwise his life would be in danger. The said appeal having not been disposed of, the Petitioner filed a writ petition which was registered as CO. No. 14505(W) of 19982 and the same was disposed of by an order dated December 24, 1982 by directing the Appeal Committee to dispose of the said appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by an order dated September 3, 1983. In the order it had been noticed that the Petitioner misappropriated governmental money amounting to Rs. 80,000.00 and he had been absconding since February 24, 1976 after a complaint was lodged with the Panskura Police Station. However, the said Appeal was dismissed on the ground that no order had been passed by the Managing Committee and as such the Petitioner was free to make an attempt to join the school and in the event, if he is not in a position to join, he may inform the Directorate of the Board of Education, Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner expressed his intention to join the school by a letter dated November 18, 1983. The Administrator, however, by a letter dated November 29, 1983 replied: "In reply, I am to inform you that since you have left the School on your own in the year 1976, without any intimation, your request to allow you to join in the School now in November, 1983, cannot be entertained and, as such, the question of allowing you to join the School as its Headmaster after the lapse of almost 7 years, does not arise at all."
(2.) The Petitioner, it appears, has not questioned the legality or validity of the said order. However, by a letter dated November 29, 1983 the Administrator refused to allow the Petitioner to join the School stating that he in terms of Rule 11 of the Leave Rules would be deemed to have resigned from services. The said order is contained in Annexure 'G' to C.R. No. 2107(W) of 1984.
(3.) The Petitioner filed a writ application questioning the said order. Although an interim order was passed, therein the same was vacated by an order dated March 2, 1984 where againstan appeal being F.M.A.T. No. 671/ 84 has been filed. The Petitioner filed another writ application questioning another order passed by the administration which was marked as C.R. 7059(W) of 1984, U.C. Banerjee J. (as His Lordship then was) dismissed the writ application summarily stating: "In this writ petition, the main grievance of the writ Petitioner is against an order of dismissal dated April 23, 1984 by the Administrator. The Principal ground as appears from the order of dismissed is that since the Petitioner was not atending the School and was not discharging the duties as the Headmaster for a period of more than five years without any authorisation, the Petitioner was treated to have resigned from the post of Headmaster and as such the order of dismissal followed. On repeated enquiries by the Court, Mr. Banerjee could produce some evidence as regards the Petitioner's attending on January 17, 1984 but not any date prior thereto. There is no evidence on record to show to prove that in fact the Petitioner did joint the School any day prior to 1984 from February, 1976. Mr. Banerjee, however, submitted that his client joined the School on the January 17, 1984. As a matter of fact the School, Register produced by the Respondent's Advocate shows an endorsement to that effect but in my view that endorsement does not in any way lend any assistance to the Petitioner's case, firstly, because it is beyond more than five years and secondly the signature on the Attendance Register as appears from the documents itself cannot be termed to be.a regular signature. In that view of the matter, I am unable to accept the contention of the Wri.t Petitioner. While it is true that there is an order of suspension or dismissal but the factum of Petitioner's presence between 1976 and 1984 could not be established in any way. As such, this writ petition must fail. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated.";