Inordinate delay in issuing a charge-sheet, non-mentioning of the business of initiation of disciplinary proceedings in the agenda of an emergency meeting, and lack of urgency in convening the meeting render the order of suspension and the charge-sheet unsustainable in law.

1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, inter alia, challenges the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him and the order of suspension along with a prayer for directing the authorities concerned to hold the election of the Managing Committee of the School forthwith.

2. So far as the last prayer is concerned the petitioner does not press the same and confines himself to the question of only the order of suspension and the issuance of the charge-sheet.

3. It appears from the affidavit of service filed in Court that all the respondents have been served with the copies of this application. Inspite of such service no one appears for the respondents excepting the State. There is no affidavit-in-opposition on record and the statements and allegations made in the writ petition are not denied by any of the respondents and as such are deemed to be admitted by the application of the doctrine of non-traverse.

4. The petitioner was appointed as a Special Cadre, Asstt. Teacher of Madhusudanpur Laxmipur Radhakanta Academy (High School) on or about May, 12, 1970. On May 1, 1972 the petitioner was appointed as Head Master of the said School and approval to such appointment was given by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) 24-Parganas by his Memo No. 2374 dated November 25, 1974 which is Annexure 'A' to the petition. On June 30, 1987 the petitioner got his first extension of one year from 2nd June, 1987 to 1st June, 1988 on attaining the age of 60 years. The petitioner got his second extension with effect from 2nd June, 1988 to 1st June, 1989 on or about 4th June, 1988. It is the allegation of the petitioner that after an ad-hoc committee was constituted for certain purposes including holding of an ejection the Secretary of the ad-hoc committee tried to prevail upon the petitioner to delay the holding of such election but not being successful convened an emergency meeting on December 31, 1988 no notice of which was served on the petitioner. No basis of such emergency meeting was also stated in the notice of the said meeting and no agenda was there relating to initiation of any disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner.

5. It further transpires that by a resolution taken on December 31, 1988 in the aforesaid emergency meeting the petitioner was purported to be suspended under clause VII(a) of Sub Rule 9 of Rule 28 of rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). The order of suspension has been annexed to the writ petition and marked with letter ‘M’. By an order dated February 28, 1989 a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner wherein various charges relating to the years 1971-72 etc. were levelled against the petitioner.

6. The petitioner challenges the said order of suspension and Issuance of the charge-sheet on several grounds. Rule 21 of the said Rules provides as follows :

"21. Agenda-The notice of each meeting shall set forth the business to be transacted at the meeting, the agenda being drawn up by the Secretary of the Committee in consultation with the Head of the Institution and the President of the Committee and, except with the consent of three-fourths of the members present, no business other than that so stated shall be transacted, provided that no matter involving the appointment of deputation or dismissal or removal of a teacher or other employee shall be taken up unless the matter has been placed on the agenda of the meeting issued with the notice, and evidence of service of such notice is maintained and preserved for inspection by any member of the Committee or any person authorised by the Board or the Director or the State Education Department.”

7. It is an admitted position that there was no agenda in the notice for the meeting held on the said date regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. It is not also stated any where as to how the question of i