1979 Supreme(Cal) 70

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Bimal Chandra Basak, J.
Dr. Tarapada Roy & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
West Bengal Board of Secondary Education & Ors. - Respondents
C. R. No. 7543(w) of 1974 with application.
Decided on : February 23, 1979

An Appeal Committee must comply with the relevant regulations and act in accordance with the law while disposing of an appeal. It must apply its mind independently to the question of reinstatement and cannot automatically pass an order of reinstatement after allowing the appeal.

Headnote:

EDUCATION - Appeal Committee - Order of reinstatement - Non-compliance of Regulations 7 and 9 of the Appeal Regulations - Bias - Appeal Committee acted in error of law - Order quashed.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent No.7, the Headmaster of Bolpur Siksha Niketan Ashram Vidyalaya, was placed under suspension by the Managing Committee of the School. Thereafter, an Administrator was appointed of the said School by the Board which was replaced later by an Ad hoc Committee. The respondent No.7 was arrested under the Preventive Detention Act but he was released on the 29th August, 1966. Thereafter certain charge-sheets were issued against the respondent No.7 by the School Authorities containing some allegations against the respondent No.7. It appears that the suspension order dated 10th July, 1966 was thereafter withdrawn. There was further charge-sheet and thereafter there were certain proceedings by the Ad hoc Committee and an order of dismissal was passed by the Ad hoc Committee. The respondent No.7 preferred an appeal before the Appeal Committee against this order of dismissal. By its order dated 25/26th June, 1969, the Appeal Committee partly allowed the appeal. It refused to grant reinstatement to the respondent No.7 but directed payment of a sum of Rs. 14,000/- to him. Against this order of the Appeal Committee the respondent No.7 filed a Writ petition in this Court. This Court by its order dated 10th June, 1974 disposed of the Writ petition. This Court held that the order gives no reason whatsoever why the Appeal Committee came to the finding dismissing the appeal. It was observed that a quasi-judicial Tribunal must give reasons for its finding but this was not so done in this case and accordingly the order must be quashed. The Rule was made absolute to the extent indicated therein and the following directions were given :- "I direct that the Appellate authority will rehear the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law as soon as practicable. All the points taken in the petition are left open to the parties to argue before the Appellate Tribunal."

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the order of the Appeal Committee dated 23rd and 24th September, 1974 as communicated by the Secretary of the Board in its letter dated 6th of November, 1974 is illegal and without jurisdiction.

Issues: 1. Whether the Appeal Committee complied with Regulations 7 and 9 of the Appeal Regulations in disposing of the appeal? 2. Whether the Appeal Committee was biased in its decision? 3. Whether the Appeal Committee acted in error of law in its decision?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that there was non-compliance of Regulation 7 as the Appeal Committee did not decide whether further enquiry into the case was necessary or not before disposing of the appeal. The Court also held that there was non-compliance of Regulation 9(1)(b)(i) as the Appeal Committee did not apply its mind independently to the question of reinstatement and automatically passed the order of reinstatement after allowing the appeal. 2. The Court held that there was no specific denial by Mr. Chatterjee of the specific allegation made against him that he was a personal friend of the respondent no. 7. The Court also held that the Appeal Committee did not give an opportunity to the petitioner to deal with the materials or documents submitted by the other sides. 3. The Court held that the Appeal Committee acted in error of law in relying on certain reasons or grounds which were erroneous in law, such as the absence of specific findings on each of the charges and the absence of a second show cause notice.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the application and made the Rule absolute. It quashed the decision of the Appeal Committee and issued a writ of certiorari and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the decision and direction contained in the letter of the Secretary of the Board dated 6th November, 1974. The Court also directed the Appeal Committee to rehear the matter in accordance with law.