Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Rajasekhar Mantha, J.
Ashish Kumar Tiwari And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Others - Respondent
WPA 2561 of 2020 with WPA 22714 of 2018 with WPA 22721 of 2018 with WPA 2562 of 2020
Decided On : 07-09-2022
Notification No. 214-SE - Jurisdiction of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education - West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act of 1963, Management of Recognized Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969 - Rule 28(8)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the jurisdiction and authority of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in disciplinary proceedings against two employee-writ petitioners who were teacher employees of an aided school. The school had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the employees, and the Board had declined approval for the same. The employees sought enforcement of the Board's order, reinstatement, and other reliefs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authority of the Board to approve suspension and disciplinary proceedings stood extinguished with the omission of Rule 28(8) of the Management of Recognized Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969. The impugned orders of the Board were rendered without jurisdiction and legal sanctity.
Issues: The key issues involved were the effect of the omission of Rule 28(8) on the authority of the Board, the legality of the disciplinary proceedings, and the applicability of the General Clauses Act to the amendment of the rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the omission of Rule 28(8) extinguished the authority of the Board, rendering the impugned orders without jurisdiction. It also clarified that the General Clauses Act did not apply to the rules in question.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders of the Board, allowed the school to take steps in accordance with existing and applicable rules, and dismissed the employee-petitioners' writ petitions.
JUDGMENT
Rajasekhar Mantha, J. - The writ petitions involve common questions of law, i.e. whether by Notification No. 214-SE dated 8thMarch, 2018 issued by the School Education Department of West Bengal, the jurisdiction and authority of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education ('Board') in respect of disciplinary proceedings against the two employee-writ petitioners stood extinguished. Consequently as to whether the order dated 5th September, 2018 is legal or sustainable.
2. The brief facts relevant to the case are that the two employee-writ petitioners in WPA 2561 of 2020 and WPA 2562 of 2020 were teacher employees of Shree Balkrishna Vithalnath Vidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as 'school'). The teaching and non-teaching staff of the school receive Dearness Allowance (D.A.) from the State and the school is an aided school within the meaning of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act of 1963 and the Management of Recognized Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969.
3. For acts and omissions complained of against the two employee- petitioners, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against them. The said proceedings comprised in show-cause notices, replies thereto of the two employee-petitioners, orders of suspension of the employee- petitioners, proposals for approval of suspension, charge sheets and enquiry reports.
4. Initially, approval for, suspending the employees and the first stage of disciplinary proceedings was declined by the Board vide orders dated 10th July, 2018.
5. Pursuant to orders dated 10th July, 2018 of the Court passed in WP 15242 (W) of 2018 and WP 15243 (W) of 2018, the order of the President of the Ad hoc Committee of the Board was set aside and the matter was remanded back for consideration afresh by the Ad hoc Committee of the Board.
6. Pursuant to the said direction of this Court, the Board, once again by order dated 25th September, 2018, disapproved the proposal of the first stage of the disciplinary proceedings against the employeepetitioners as also the orders of suspension.
7. The employee-petitioners seek enforcement of the order of the Board, reinstatement of service in the school and other consequential reliefs. The school has filed WPA 22714 of 2018 and WPA 22721 of 2018 challenging the Board's orders dated 25th September, 2018.
8. The powers of a Managing Committee of aided and non-aided institutions, inter alia, to deal with their employees were defined under Rule 28 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act of 1969. Rule 28(8) prescribed the procedure for disciplinary action against the employees and the powers and duties of the Managing Committee of aided and unaided schools.
'28. Powers of Committee-.......
28(1)........
28(2)........
28(3)........
28(4)........
28(5)........
28(6)........
28(7)........
28(8) Both in aided and un-aided Institutions the Committee shall have the power, subject to the prior approval of the Board, to remove, or dismiss permanent or temporary teachers and other employees. For this purpose the Committee shall first draw up formal proceedings and issue charge-sheet to the teacher or the employee concerned, and offer him reasonable facility for defending himself. The teacher or the employee proposed to be proceeded against shall submit his explanation, ordinarily, within a fortnight of the receipt of the charge-sheet, explanations submitted by the teacher or the employee concerned and the reasons for which the Committee decides in favour of taking disciplinary action. If the Board considers that there are sufficient grounds for taking disciplinary action the Committee shall issue formal notice calling upon the teacher or the employee considered to show-cause, ordinarily within a fortnight, why he should not be dismissed or removed from service. The Committee shal, then, send again to the Board all relevant papers including the explanation submitted by the teacher or the employee concerned and the recommendations of the Committee for
Omission of a rule in a statute renders proceedings initiated in accordance with the rule ineffective or infructuous.
Minority institutions are not bound by external regulations like the Rules of 2018, provided they ensure fair hearing in disciplinary proceedings.
The court established the validity of the Special Rules in relation to the Management Rules, 1969 and determined that the Special Rules had not been rescinded and were still in operation.
Suspension orders without prior approval from the Director of Education lapse after 15 days, ensuring employee protection under the Delhi School Education Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prior approval of the Director of Education is mandatory for the termination/removal of an employee of a recognized institution under Sect....
Prior approval from the Director of Education is mandatory for the termination of employees in recognized institutions, emphasizing the importance of due process and adherence to statutory provisions....
Point of law: A departmental proceeding can continue so long as the employee is in service. In the event, a disciplinary proceeding is kept pending by the employer the employee cannot be made to reti....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
