PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

While deciding this appeal our attention was drawn to the plight of the Principal of a renowned college of West Bengal who had to suffer immensely at the instance of the Governing Body of the college.

The learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal beautifully described the high-handed arbitrary acts on the part of the Governing Body while conducting disciplinary proceedings against the Principal of the college. The learned Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment and order under appeal demonstrated that the members of the Governing Body were not at all keen to observe the principles of natural justice and procedural justice by granting minimum opportunity to the said Principal to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings. Unfortunately, the members of the Governing Body were unmindful of the position of the Principal of a college. A Principal can be subjected to disciplinary proceedings but while conducting the said disciplinary proceedings, norms relating to principles of natural justice, procedural justice apart from other relevant Statutory Rules should be strictly followed.

In the present case, learned Single Judge has pointed out that the Governing Body proceeded against the Principal of the college in order to punish him at the time of retirement. The conduct of the Governing Body as found by the learned Single Judge is shocking and the time has come when the members of the Governing Body should be reminded that reckless action/actions on the part of the Governing Body would not only prejudice the interests of the teaching and/or non-teaching employee/employees of the college but the same would also considerably damage the prospect of the institution.

The respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Principal of Serampore Girls’ College.

The Governing Body of the said college initiated disciplinary proceedings against the said Principal upon issuing charge-sheet on 31st July, 2003.

It has been stated on behalf of the Principal that he was out of station on and from 6th August, 2003 to 13th August, 2003 and returned only on 14th August, 2003 when he came to know that the postal peon asked him to take delivery of a registered letter. Since 15th August, 2003 was holiday, the respondent/writ petitioner collected the said registered envelope containing the charge-sheet on 16th August, 2003. The said respondent/writ petitioner was directed to submit reply to the charge-sheet within 15 days. It was, however, not specified in the said charge-sheet whether such reply should be submitted within 15 days from the date of the charge-sheet or from the date of receipt thereof. The respondent/writ petitioner thought that reply to the said charge-sheet should be submitted within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same.

The President of the Governing Body of the college, thereafter, published a notice in the two daily newspapers on 20th August, 2003 wherein it was alleged that the respondent/writ petitioner had failed to contact the Enquiry Officer despite notice and the said Principal was asked to contact the Enquiry Officer in order to examine the documents relating to the alleged irregularities. The Principal of the college, however, informed the President of the Governing Body of the college in writing on 21st August, 2003 that reply to the charge-sheet was being prepared and would be submitted within time. A copy of the said written communication was also forwarded to the Enquiry Officer concerned.

From the records we find that on 25th August, 2003, said respondent/writ petitioner received a letter dated 10th August, 2003 written by the Enquiry Officer and sent by registered post. The said registered letter was posted on 14th August, 2003 requesting the respondent/writ petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 18th August, 2003 at the college between 11 A.M. and 4 P.M. Therefore, by the time the said letter was received by the Principal on 25th August, 200