The Managing Committee should not have proceeded with the enquiry against the writ petitioner without permitting her to resume duty. The decision of the Managing Committee proposing to dismiss the writ petitioner from service and the order of the administrator approving the proposal, being steps taken in terms of the interim order passed on this writ appeal, cannot be sustained in law and hence, shall be of no effect in future.

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. The writ appeal (F.M.A. 984 of 2015) is at the instance of the Managing Committee of Uttar Dum Dum Vidyapith for Girls (H.S.) (hereafter the school). It registers a challenge to an interim order of injunction dated June 13, 2014, passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 37853(W) of 2013, being a writ petition presented by the Headmistress of the school, respondent no. 1 in this appeal (hereafter the writ petitioner). By the order impugned, the learned Judge while calling for affidavits restrained the respondents in the writ petition from proceeding further against the writ petitioner on the basis of a charge-sheet dated September 20, 2011 and the enquiry report submitted in pursuance thereof until further orders.

2. The events leading to presentation of the writ petition may be noticed first.

(i) The Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school, pursuant to a decision taken in an emergency meeting of such committee on July 30, 2011, called upon the writ petitioner to show cause by a notice dated August 3, 2011 as to why disciplinary action shall not be initiated. The notice referred to an incident that took place in the school premises on July 28, 2011 at about 4.10 pm. On that day, a student of class XII of the school did not use the urinal in the toilet on the alleged ground that it was dirty and urinated outside the toilet. The writ petitioner apparently punished the student by asking her to write on a piece of paper “I have urinated outside” (the Bengali version translated into English by us) and made her to hold such paper with her hands like a poster and stand near the gate of the school so as to be visible to all. Allegedly, the writ petitioner had also instructed an assistant teacher of the school to make an announcement by mike in the classrooms to be audible to all the students, thereby asking them to move out of the school through the main gate only so that they could see the erring student holding the writing while standing thereat. According to the Managing Committee, the situation was quite ordinary which could have been settled upon discussion with the Assistant Headmistress and other teachers or even by imposing minor punishment. As a result of such incident, there was demonstration by agitated guardians who damaged school property for which even the local police had to intervene. The incident was reported by print and electronic media extensively and as a consequence thereof, the good name of the school had been tarnished because of the wrongful activities of the writ petitioner calling for disciplinary action.

(ii) The writ petitioner duly responded to the show cause notice by submitting a representation dated August 8, 2011. According to her, she had objected to an indecent act of a class XII student and had sought to enforce discipline amongst the students and such an action did not warrant disciplinary action.

(iii) The Managing Committee in its meeting dated August 23, 2011 resolved to place the writ petitioner under suspension. It was also resolved to direct the writ petitioner to show cause why regular disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalty shall not be initiated against her. The resolution dated August 23, 2011 was furnished to the writ petitioner by the Secretary vide letter dated August 24, 2011.

(iv) The writ petitioner replied on September 2, 2011. She once again put forth her version as to why no disciplinary action was called for against her and, accordingly, prayed for withdrawal of the order of suspension.

(v) Soon thereafter, a charge-sheet dated September 20, 2011 was served upon the writ petitioner. A reply dated October 8, 2011 thereto followed from the end of the writ petitioner. The Managing Committee on consideration of such reply decided to hold an enquiry and, accordingly, appointed Sri Amarendra Nath Mukherji, a retired Headmaster, to conduct enquiry.

(vi) The decision of the Managing Committee placing the writ petitioner under