JUDGMENT :

Lapita Banerji, J.

1. This appeal and application arises out of a judgment and order dated March 8, 2022 (impugned order) passed by an Hon’ble Single Bench of this High Court. By the impugned order, the Hon’ble Single Bench allowed the writ petition and directed the Headmaster of the school to issue and send a “No Liability Certificate” in favour of the petitioner to the Treasury Officer concerned, Barasat- II, through District Inspector of Schools (SE), Kolkata. The said “No Liability Certificate” was to be issued for the purpose of disbursement of pensionary benefits and all the other post retirement benefits to the writ petitioner/private respondent No.1/Retired Headmaster as per Pension Payment Order (for short “the PPO”) dated February 24, 2021.

2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the Managing Committee of the school in issue/respondent no.5 in the writ petition, preferred the present appeal being MAT No.516 of 2022.

3. The principle grounds of challenge in the appeal are that, after the discovery of serious financial irregularities committed by the writ petitioner/Headmaster, subsequent to his retirement on June 30, 2020, “No Liability Certificate” could not have been issued by the appellant/Managing Committee of the school in issue. Various illegal activities/financial irregularities for the year 2017-18 have been discovered against the writ petitioner post his retirement. The writ petitioner appointed a private auditor for the school for two years prior to his retirement, excluding the empanelled auditors appointed by the Commissioner of School Education which is impermissible in law. Hence, the Managing Committee of the school passed a resolution to scrutinize the accounts for the years 2017-18 by an accountant.

4. The Hon’ble Single Bench without considering the report by the said independent accountant wrongly described as “independent auditor” in paragraph no.8 of the stay petition being CAN No.1 of 2022 directed the Headmaster of the school in issue to release the “No Liability Certificate” in favour of the writ petitioner.

5. Furthermore, in Paragraph no.8 of the stay petition the years of scrutiny by the “said auditor” have been stated to be for the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 where as the report at pages 242-246 is only for the year 2017-18.

6. The admitted facts before this Court are that:

i. The writ petitioner joined the service as a Headmaster of the school on May 14, 2004;

ii. The writ petitioner retired from service on June 30, 2020 after rendering 33 years of service as an Assistant Teacher and thereafter 16 years of service as the Headmaster of the school without any break in service;

iii. There were no disciplinary proceedings pending against the writ petitioner at the time of his retirement;

iv. The President of the school issued a “No Liability Certificate” in favour of the writ petitioner on August 2, 2020;

v. The writ petitioner filed all the pension papers offline to the District Inspector of Schools (SE) on August 13, 2020;

vi. The Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, West Bengal issued a PPO in favour of the writ petitioner vide Memo No.SEC/BRS/21/F/1631 dated February 24, 2021;

vii. Despite several representations “No Liability Certificate” was not issued by the Teacher-in-Charge/respondent no.6 in the writ petition pursuant to the PPO dated February 24, 2021.

7. Mr. Majumder, appearing for the appellant/Managing Committee of the school in issue argued that it was not possible for the Teacher-in- Charge (for short, as “the TIC”) of the School to issue a “No Liability Certificate” in favour of the writ petitioner/retired Headmaster since he, while discharging his duties, completed audit of the accounts for the years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 through a private auditor, which was not permissible under the law. He argued that the resolution taken by the School on 29th June, 2020, just a day prior the retirement of the petitioner was an illegal res