Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Pritish Biswas vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 13 February, 2015
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
18 13.2.15
Sc W. P. No. 33743 (W) OF 2014
------------
Sri Pritish Biswas
-vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Amalesh Roy Ms. Mousumi Bhowal.
.....For the Petitioner.
Mr. Shyamal Sanyal Mr. Jyoti Prakash Chatterjee.
.....For the State.
Mr. Tapas Kumar Mondal ....For the School.
The petitioner is an assistant teacher of Sitakundu Vidyayatan (H.S.) [hereafter the school]. He was detained in custody in excess of 48 hours in connection with investigation of Sonarpur Police Station F.I.R. No.152 of 2014 dated 9th February, 2014 under Sections 302/304B498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He has since been released on bail on 11th July, 2014.
Since the petitioner was in custody in excess of 48 hours, he was deemed to have been placed under suspension in terms of Rule 28(8b) of the Management of Recognised Non- Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969 (hereafter the rules). It is not in dispute that the petitioner is being paid subsistence allowance in accordance with the relevant provision in the rules.
This writ petition has been presented by the petitioner voicing a grievance that since he has been accused of an offence not relatable to official discharge of duties and has also been released on bail, the school ought to allow him to resume duty. 2 Mr. Mondal, learned advocate appearing for the school submits that since the parents of the students are against the petitioner's resumption of duty, any direction to permit the petitioner to resume duty might amount to disturbance of law and order situation in the locality. It is also submitted by him, referring to certain certificates issued by the Professor-in- charge, Fakir Chand College that the petitioner has produced forged documents and this is one further reason why relief to him should be declined.
Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate for the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), South 24-Parganas (hereafter the district inspector) submits that since the matter relating to resumption of duty on revocation of the order of suspension is essentially one between the school and the petitioner, the district inspector has no say.
Having heard learned advocates for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the managing committee of the school ought to consider as to whether on revocation of the order of suspension, the petitioner should be allowed to resume duty or not. It is ordered accordingly.
While so considering, the managing committee of the school may bear in mind the fact that the petitioner has not been accused of dereliction of duty in regard to official discharge of duty and further that he is being paid subsistence allowance out of the grants-in-aid, without extracting any work from him. 3 That is clear wastage of public money. Besides, the question of the parents feeling aggrieved should the order of suspension be revoked, is really a non-issue; it is not for the parents to dictate who shall be allowed to teach and who shall not be allowed to teach. Once a teacher is appointed and his appointment is approved by the district inspector, he has a right to continue in service until such right is abrogated in accordance with law. Also, the petitioner has not incurred suspension on the ground of production of forged documents. If that is considered an issue, the petitioner may be proceeded against departmentally and placed under suspension under Rule 28 (9)(viia) of the rules. Memo no. S/Adm/17 dated 19th January, 2007 may also provide sufficient light to arrive at a just decision.
In the event the managing committee has sufficient reason to decline the prayer of the petitioner to resume duty, a reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to him.
Let consideration be effected in compliance with this order as early as possible but not later than four weeks from its receipt.
The writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order for costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.
(Dipankar Datta,J.) 4