Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

This writ application has been preferred challenging the order of suspension dated 2nd July, 2003, the charge sheet dated 2nd August, 2003, the inquiry report dated 17th March, 2008, the second show cause notice dated 16th May, 2008 and the final order of punishment dated 12th June, 2008.

The broad essential facts, which need to be adumbrated for the decision of the instant writ application, are that the petitioner was conferred the Master of Commerce Degree after he passed the said examination securing 1st Class marks. Thereafter the petitioner was conferred Ph.D. in Accountancy from the University of Calcutta. Upon participating in a selection process and upon emerging to be successful in the same, he was appointed as a fulltime Lecturer in the Department of Commerce (Accountancy) in Ananda Mohan College (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said College’) with effect from 1st September, 1999 and his service was duly confirmed on 9th September, 2000. According to the petitioner, his colleagues were jealous of his success as a teacher and, as such they hatched up a conspiracy and one Smt. Ayantika Ghosh, a lecturer in Bengali in the said college submitted a false and fabricated complaint against the petitioner on 3rd June, 2003. On the basis of the said complaint, the teacher-in-charge asked the petitioner to show cause in writing within seven days from the service of the said letter. The petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice whereby he denied the allegations, as made against him. However, the Secretary of the Governing Body placed the petitioner under suspension with effect from 2nd July, 2003 and decided to start a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner.

Accordingly, a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 2nd August, 2003, with the direction to submit his reply to the Inquiry Officer, viz., Sri Agniswar Dutta Gupta, Advocate. The petitioner duly submitted his reply against the said charge sheet on 15th September, 2003. Thereafter the Inquiry Officer started the enquiry proceeding and as many as 74 sittings were held by the said Inquiry Officer from 22nd September, 2003 to 27th January, 2005.

Thereafter no advancement was made in respect of the said inquiry proceeding for about 19 months. Under such circumstances, as the petitioner was under suspension and as there was unusual delay in concluding the inquiry proceeding, the petitioner filed one Writ Petition being W.P. No.3350 (W) of 2007. After the said writ application was filed, the petitioner was informed by a notice that one Prof. Promotha Nath Palit, Advocate has been appointed as the Inquiry Officer and the petitioner was asked to attend the said inquiry on 21st September, 2006. However, the petitioner informed the said Inquiry Officer that since a writ petition has been filed by him in this respect in the High Court, so the inquiry officer should refrain himself from proceeding with the inquiry. However, ignoring such representation of the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer preferred to proceed with the inquiry proceeding in absence of the petitioner and ultimately in his report dated 17th March, 2008 he held the petitioner guilty of the charges. A copy of the said inquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner on 16th May, 2008 by the Chairman of the Governing Body of the said college along with a notice whereby the petitioner was asked to submit in writing as to why penalty of compulsory retirement should not be imposed upon him.

The petitioner duly submitted his reply against that notice. The Chairman, Governing Body of the said college, issued the final order of compulsory retirement from service against the petitioner on 12th June, 2008. In the said punishment order, the petitioner was informed that if he desired, he can prefer appeal against the said final order of punishment before the Standing Appellate Committee constituted by the Brahmo Samaj Education Society.

Challenging the order of suspensi