Back
2004 Supreme(Cal) 468
High Court Of Calcutta
Altamas Kabir, Asit Kumar Bisi
GOVERNING BODY OF KRISHNAGAR WOMENs COLLEGE - Appellant
Versus
GOURI PHANI CHAKRABORTY - Respondent
F. M. A 2847 Of 2002
Decided On : 07/14/2004
Anup Ghosh, ASHOK SARKAR, BHUDEV BHATTACHARYA, BIKASH RANJAN BHATTACHARJI, DEBASIS KAR GUPTA, NABANITA ROY, Rajat Dutta
A penalty of suspension up to the date of retirement cannot be considered a minor penalty under section 9(1)(iv) of the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Act, 1975, and the Governing Body of the College cannot impose such a penalty without providing the teacher with a copy of the enquiry report and a second show cause notice as required under Rule 9(1)(a) and (b) of the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Rules, 1977.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL COLLEGE TEACHERS (SECURITY OF SERVICE) ACT, 1975 - SECTION 9(1)(IV) - SUSPENSION - MAJOR PENALTY - ENQUIRY REPORT - SECOND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - VALIDITY OF PENALTY IMPOSED.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a principal of a women's college, was suspended and subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report, and the Governing Body of the College imposed a penalty of suspension till the date of her superannuation, which was challenged by the respondent in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the penalty of suspension up to the date of the respondent's retirement could not be considered a minor penalty as contemplated under section 9(1)(iv) of the Act but was a major penalty almost in the nature of compulsory retirement. The Court further held that the Governing Body of the College acted without jurisdiction in visiting the respondent with the same consequences as would have followed had the College authorities imposed a major penalty so as to attract the provisions of Rules 9(1)(a) and (b) of the Rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the penalty of suspension imposed on the respondent was a major penalty or a minor penalty? 2. Whether the Governing Body of the College had the authority to impose such a penalty without providing the respondent with a copy of the enquiry report and a second show cause notice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the penalty of suspension imposed on the respondent was a major penalty and not a minor penalty as it would severely compromise and/or prejudice the respondent in receiving her retirement benefits. 2. The Court held that the Governing Body of the College did not have the authority to impose such a penalty without providing the respondent with a copy of the enquiry report and a second show cause notice as it was violative of Rule 9(1)(a) and (b) of the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Rules, 1977.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the order of the learned single Judge to the extent that the respondent would be entitled to her retirement benefits on the basis of the last pay which she would have drawn had she not been suspended till the date of her superannuation.
( 1 ) THE respondent No. 1 in the appeal was appointed as the principal of the Krishnanagar Women's College and her service was confirmed on 22nd December, 1990. On 24th March, 2000, she was served with a notice to show cause in respect of various allegations. The respondent No. 1 replied to the show cause notice on 7th April 2000, denying all the allegations contained therein. On 11th April, 2000, the Governing Body of the College decided to issue a charge sheet to the respondent No. 1 and placed her under suspension on the same day.
( 2 ) THE order of suspension was challenged by the respondent No. 1 in a writ petition numbered A. S. T. No. 1562 of 2000 and on 16th May, 2000, the learned single Judge directed the respondent No. 1 herein to hand over the keys and other documents pertaining to the College to the Chairman of the Governing Body. The learned Judge also directed that the suspension order would be kept in abeyance, but granted liberty to the College authorities to take necessary steps after giving the said respondent a hearing in accordance with law and till such time the said respondent was to be treated as on leave.
( 3 ) THE aforesaid order of the learned single Judge was challenged in appeal by the respondent No. 1 herein being M. A. T. No. 1824 of 2000. On 19th June 2000, on consent of the parties the writ petition was taken up for hearing and disposed by the Appeal Court. After considering the relevant provisions of the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Act, 1975, the Division Bench held that the order of suspension was valid and dismissed the writ petition. A direction was given to expedite the disciplinary proceedings and to conclude the same within three months from the date of the communication of the order.
( 4 ) ACCORDING to the respondent No. 1 herein when the stipulated time period was almost over she was informed by one Shri Nirmal Kanti Sarkar, advocate, by a letter dated 26th September, 2000, that he had been appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the disciplinary enquiry and by a subsequent letter dated 9th October, 2000, he instructed the respondent to submit her reply to the charge sheet dated 17th April 2000.
( 5 ) THE respondent replied to the said letter on 14th October, 2000, indicating that she had not been informed by the Governing Body of the College of Shri Sarkar's appointment as Enquiry Officer.
( 6 ) ON 29th October 2000, the respondent made a representation to the authorities concerned to allow her to resumes her duties in the College since the period of three months stipulated by the Appeal Court had expired on 28th July, 2000. Subsequently by his letter dated 9th November, 2000, the President of the Governing Body of the College informed the respondent that Shri Sarkar had been appointed as Enquiry Officer in terms of the resolution of the Governing Body dated 12th July, 2000. On 3rd February, 2001, the Enquiry Officer wrote to the respondent asking her to inspect the documents in respect of the charges against her on 10th February, 2001, and to also submit her defense to him. In response to the said letter the respondent by her letter dated 7th February 2001, informed the Equity Officer that since the time to complete the disciplinary proceedings had expired, the enquiry could not be continued and that she had been advised not to participate in the proceedings at that stage.
( 7 ) AS will appeal from the materials on record an application was made by the Governing Body of the College on 15th November 2000 for extension of the time to complete the disciplinary proceeding by a period of three months from the date of the order. The said application was taken up for hearing on 13th July, 2001, when the time to conclude the disciplinary proceeding was extended by a period of two months from the date of the order. On 29th August, 2001, the respondent No. 1 was informed by the President of the Governing Body that the Governing Body had decided to imp
