Back
2019 Supreme(Cal) 622
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
Banshi Jana & Others - Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Others - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 40 to 43 & 46 of 2017
Decided On : 30-07-2019
For the Petitioners:Sudip Deb, Sunil Kumar Chakraborty, Sumitava Chakraborty, Advocates.
For the Respondents:S. Bandopadhyay, Arka Kumar Nag, Chama Mookherji, Puja Bose, Anujit Mookherji, Advocates.
Headnote:
SCHOOL - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - JURISDICTION OF ENQUIRY OFFICER - RES JUDICATA - DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY - CODE OF REGULATIONS FOR ANGLO INDIAN AND OTHER LISTED SCHOOLS, 1993 - Held, the writ petitions are barred by the principles of res judicata/constructive res judicata and are also hit by the principles of issue estoppel and Doctrine of Finality. The said code is entirely in the form of guidelines and the school authorities cannot be compelled to follow the same. The proceedings of Enquiry is not contrary to any law and has been initiated keeping in mind the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer was only a fact finding body and therefore, he had no judicial powers to decide on his own jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners were appointed as non-teaching staff (Group D) of the respondent school and the respondent school has initiated disciplinary proceedings against all the five writ petitioners. The main issue in these writ petitions is whether the said respondent school can continue with the said disciplinary proceedings initiated against the said writ petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The writ petitions are barred by the principles of res judicata/constructive res judicata and are also hit by the principles of issue estoppel and Doctrine of Finality. The said code is entirely in the form of guidelines and the school authorities cannot be compelled to follow the same. The proceedings of Enquiry is not contrary to any law and has been initiated keeping in mind the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer was only a fact finding body and therefore, he had no judicial powers to decide on his own jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the writ petitions are hit by the principles of res judicata/constructive res judicata and or the principles of issue estoppel and Doctrine of Finality? Whether the respondents acted in violation of the Code of Regulations for Anglo Indian and Other Listed Schools, 1993 in the manner in which they conducted the disciplinary proceedings and accordingly the same is liable to be struck down? Whether the Doctrine of Necessity required the school authorities to have conducted the disciplinary proceedings only through the Principal being the head of the institution? Whether the enquiry officer erred in law and acted in an arbitrary manner by not deciding the issue of jurisdiction?
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of res judicata is a specie of the principle of estoppel. When a proceeding based on a particular cause of action has attained finality, the principle of res judicata shall fully apply. The said code is not backed by any constitutional provision or a statutory provision and is thus a mere digest of guidelines for Anglo-Indian Schools and Listed Schools. The code is entirely in the form of guidelines and the school authorities cannot be compelled to follow the same. The proceedings of Enquiry is not contrary to any law and has been initiated keeping in mind the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer was only a fact finding body and therefore, he had no judicial powers to decide on his own jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The writ petitions accordingly fail and are dismissed without any order as to costs. The School Authorities/Enquiry Committee is directed to give a copy of the enquiry report to the writ petitioners within a period of one week from date.
JUDGMENT :
1. The grievances raised and issues involved in all the five writ petitions are common, and accordingly they were heard together and are being decided conjointly. The main issue involved in the writ petitions is that the writ petitioners were appointed as non-teaching staff (Group D) of the respondent school and the respondent school has initiated disciplinary proceedings against all the five writ petitioners. The main issue in these writ petitions is whether the said respondent school can continue with the said disciplinary proceedings initiated against the said writ petitioners.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the facts in writ petition W.P. No. 42 of 2017 are being taken into consideration and are chronologically delineated herein below:
a. The writ petitioner was employed as a sweeper with The Calcutta Boys' School [hereinafter referred to as the 'said school'] in the month of July, 1986.
b. In a meeting of the managing committee of the Calcutta Boys' School held on 10th February, 2015 it was brought to notice of the committee that an erstwhile gardener namely Mr. Arup Rong had made several allegations against the Principal and Secretary, Mr. Raja McGee. It was also brought to the notice that certain non-teaching staff members (including the petitioner herein) had collaborated with the said gardener who filed a criminal case against other staff members including the Principal and Secretary, Mr. Raja McGee. In order to take appropriate steps and to maintain the reputation of the school, the managing committee decided and resolved that the Enquiry Committee constituted on 27th April, 2013 shall be empowered to hold an enquiry against all the employees of the school that had lodged complaint against the staff members of the school including Mr. Raja McGee. The said resolution is provided below:
"RESOLVED THAT, the same Enquiry Committee, constituted on 27th April 2013, be appointed to conduct an enquiry to probe into the circumstances which led to the conspiracy against the Principal & Secretary and the interest of the School;
THAT, the Enquiry Committee shall enquire into all aspects including involvement of the staff of the Calcutta Boys' Schools and such other people;
THAT, the Enquiry Committee be empowered to initiate Departmental proceedings against all the employees of the School that had and or have lodged false/malicious complaints against the Staff Members of the School, including, Mr. Raja McGee, Principal & Secretary in support of the case of the gardener, Arup Rong by issuing Show Cause notice to them;
THAT, in the event of replies to the Show-Cause notices not being found satisfactory the Enquiry Committee be empowered to appoint an Enquiry Officer to conduct the Enquiry in accordance with law and strict adherence to the principles of Natural Justice, Equity and Fair Play;
THAT, the Enquiry Committee be empowered to initiate necessary steps/actions as deemed fit to facilitate a smooth and fair process of Enquiry and that it be obligatory for all persons concerned to co-operate with the Enquiry Committee/ Enquiry Officer duly appointed, and to comply with all instructions/ directives issued by them;
FURTHER RESOLVED
THAT, the Enquiry Committee evaluate the findings and submit its report to the Chairman, Bishop Dr. Phillip S. Masih, in a tentative period of three months. Any alteration in the period of enquiry would be in consultation with the Chairman, Bishop Dr. Phillip S. Masih."
(underlined by me for emphasis)
c. On 12th April, 2016 the writ petitioner was served with a show cause notice [hereinafter referred to as 'said show cause notice'] by the Enquiry Committee of the said school and in lieu of such show cause notice the writ petitioner on 20th April, 2016, replied to the said show cause notice. Thereafter, on 13th May, 2016, the writ petitioner received a letter of 'Suspension Pending Enquiry' from the Enquiry Committee of the said school which was to come into effect from 15th May, 2016.
d. It was inform
