Back
2002 Supreme(Cal) 378
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.
Jyotsna Bikash Ray – Petitioner
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No. 648 of 1997
Decided On : June 13, 2002
Mr. B.B. Ghosh, Ms. Rina Roy Chowdhury and Madhusree Ghosh for the Petitioner
Mr. Amal Baran Chatterjee and Balai Lal Sahoo for the Respondent Nos. 7 & 8
Strict adherence to the prescribed procedure is essential for compliance with natural justice in disciplinary proceedings against college teachers.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL COLLEGE TEACHERS (SECURITY OF SERVICES) ACT, 1975 - SEC. 9(2) - PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING PENALTIES ON TEACHERS - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - NATURAL JUSTICE - STRICT ADHERENCE TO PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE - ESSENTIAL FOR COMPLIANCE WITH NATURAL JUSTICE - FAILURE TO FOLLOW PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE - VITIATES ENTIRE EXERCISE.
Fact of the Case:
A college teacher challenged his removal from service, alleging that the disciplinary proceedings and removal order were illegal and contrary to the procedure laid down under the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Services) Act, 1975 and Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner was not in accordance with the prescribed form and did not disclose the documents relied on or provide a list of witnesses. The Enquiry Committee's report did not contain any fact-finding of misconduct and was prepared in breach of natural justice principles. The Governing Body mechanically accepted the Committee's report and failed to form an independent opinion on the petitioner's alleged misconduct.
Issues: 1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings and removal order were conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down under the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Services) Act, 1975 and Rules? 2. Whether the principle of natural justice was complied with during the disciplinary proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 9(2) of the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Services) Act, 1975 and Rule 7 of the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Services) Rules, 1977, which prescribe the procedure for imposing penalties on teachers. The court held that strict adherence to the prescribed procedure is essential for compliance with natural justice, as it ensures that the teacher is given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations. 2. The court found that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner did not conform to the prescribed format and did not disclose the documents relied on or provide a list of witnesses. The Enquiry Committee's report did not contain any fact-finding of misconduct and was prepared in breach of natural justice principles. The Governing Body mechanically accepted the Committee's report and failed to form an independent opinion on the petitioner's alleged misconduct. Therefore, the court held that the principle of natural justice was not complied with during the disciplinary proceedings.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order of removal and directed the college authority to proceed afresh by issuing a charge-sheet in accordance with the prescribed form and completing the disciplinary proceedings within two months. The court also directed the college authority to pay the petitioner 50% of the back wages and costs of the application.
The writ petitioner was a college teacher in Commerce Section of Ram Nagar College and he has been removed from services. He has challenged this impugned order of removal, as well as charge-sheet and of the disciplinary proceeding itself. On or about 12th September, 1994 he was served with a charge-sheet on the allegation of committing various misconduct, namely, unauthorised habitual absence from the duty and conducting himself in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of the academic atmosphere of the college, as well as students, The petitioner replied to the charges, obviously denied the same, therefore, the Governing Body set up an Inquiry Committee, which has submitted a report to the Governing Body. The Governing Body, pursuant to the report of the Committee has removed the petitioner from services.
2. The learned lawyer for the petitioner contends that the entire procedure of holding disciplinary proceedings right from the stage of issuance of chargesheet up to passing of the order of removal is absolutely illegal and contrary to the procedure laid down under Section 9 of the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Services) Act, 1975 read with West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Services) Rules, 1977.
3. He contends the charge-sheet has not been issued in accordance with the prescribed form being Appendix ‘C’. No document relied on by the Governing Body was disclosed in the charge-sheet, nor copies thereof were supplied to the petitioner as such there has been complete breach of natural justice by not adhering to the established procedure. He has cited a decision in support of his submission of Supreme Court reported in (1) AIR 1966 SC 1864. Therefore, he contends, no teacher of the college can be removed without following the mandatory provision of Section 9 sub-section (2) of the aforesaid Act. He contends further that it will appear from the language of sub-section (2) of the said section that enquiry has to be held in the manner prescribed by the Rule. He has drawn my attention to Rule 7 regarding manner of holding disciplinary proceedings and submits that none of the aforesaid procedure as prescribed in Rule 7 has been followed.
4. Mr. Amal Baran Chatterjee appearing for the respondent college submits that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and in fact he being the only teacher in the commerce stream not only abstained himself from attending the classes but he use to sign attendance register without attending college or taking classes for several days. It will appear from the records that on several occasions he was reminded of his illegal acts and omission and was given chance to rectify himself. More often he used to come to college and classes in a drunken state and there was a serious commotion and unrest amongst the student and the guardians and series of complaints were received by the Principal against the petitioner. In spite of repeated opportunity being given, he did not rectify himself, as such the writ petitioner has been removed from the services with due process of law. He contends that the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner to which he replied: Enquiry Committee gave him hearing and he participated therein, so natural justice was fully complied with. He fairly submits that though there was no strict compliance of the procedure laid down in the aforesaid Rule but then substantial compliance was there. He contends further that it is not necessary in a disciplinary proceeding which is being conducted by the laymen, all the technicalities and legal formalities are to be observed with fullproof accuracy. He contends further that the object and purpose of Section 9 sub-section (2) of the said Act read with Rule 7 of the Rules is to observe principle of natural justice.
5. Having heard respective contentions of the learned Counsels of this case in my view the only point which has fallen for consideration is that whether the petitioner has been removed from the services obse
