IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a service dispute involving a private educational institution and its employee is not amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution if the service conditions are not governed by statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. A dismissed teacher has filed this writ petition praying for her reinstatement in the post of Assistant Teacher after setting aside the order of dismissal from service dated 25.11.2013 and to pay subsistence allowance for the period from 16.07.2012 to 25.11.2013 along with interest.

2. Petitioner was appointed as a part time teacher of St. Joseph & Mary’s School (for short “the school”) on a purely temporary basis and joined the said post on 05.07.1986. Thereafter, her service was confirmed as a Full time teacher. Petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect by a letter dated July 16, 2012 alleging that she was involved in commission of gross misconduct for which a disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against her.

3. Petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 27.08.2012 and the charges levelled against her was that she had committed “subversive activities detrimental to the interest of the school, severely beating the students, insubordination, neglect of work or negligence in the performance of duty.” Enquiry officer submitted his report dated 24.02.2003 concluding that the charges of (i) subversive activities detrimental to the interest of the school, (ii) severely beating the students, (iii) insubordination, (iv) neglect of work and negligence in the performance of duty are proved. A second show cause notice was issued proposing to dismiss the petitioner from the post of a teacher. The Managing Committee, in its meeting held on November 25, 2013, took a decision to dismiss the petitioner from service.

4. Being aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court.

5. Mr. Majumdar, learned advocate appearing in support of the writ petition contended that the school conducted the enquiry behind the back of the writ petitioner by not serving the notices of enquiry upon the petitioner. He further contended that the entire enquiry was vitiated in view of the law laid down in the case of Ghanshyam Das Shrivastava vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 1183 as it was conducted without making payment of subsistence allowance. He placed reliance upon a decision in the case of K. Krishnamacharyulu and Others vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and Another, AIR 1998 SC 295 in support of his contention that the service of a teacher in a school has an element of public interest in it as the school is discharging public duties and functions. He contended that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse as it misconstrued a letter written by the petitioner to mitigate the situation to be a letter of apology. Mr. Majumdar contended that the allegation of not maintaining cordial relation with colleagues is different from allegation of insubordination or subversive activities as mentioned in the charge sheet. According to him, the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the charge of negligence or neglect of work stands proved is extraneous to the charges framed, which is impermissible in law. In support of such contention, he placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2006) 4 SCC 713. He submitted that the enquiry proceeding was conducted in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and for such reason the dismissal order should be set aside and the writ petitioner should be allowed relief of full back wages from the date of dismissal till the notional date of her superannuation i.e. 02.03.2017. In support of such contention, he placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 324.

6. Mr. Datta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the school seriously disputed the contentions of Mr. Majumdar. He contended that the respondent school is a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 and is managed by its own Managing Committee. There was/is no government control in the management o