The main legal point established in the judgment is that suspension is not a punishment and should be temporary, with expeditious disciplinary proceedings. Prolonged suspension without justifiable reasons violates the right to livelihood and is arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. The writ petitioner in this case has challenged the order of the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), Jhargram, dated 08.04.2021.

2. This is an order of the said respondent authority, in compliance with the direction of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta dated 11.01.2021, for grant of opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and taking a decision as regards his prayer for withdrawing his suspension order and allowing him to join in the duties. Though, however, writ petitioner’s such prayer, has been rejected by the said respondent.

3. The finding of the decision of the concerned authority is extracted as below:-

“During hearing Sri Swarup Chandra Bisui has been given an opportunity to be heard. Necessary documents in support of his representation have also been asked for submission. Sri Swarup Chandra Bisui could not produce any supportive documents.

So,

(i) as he is alleged to have committed a grave offence.

(ii) as he is arrested by All Women P.S., Jhargram Case No.-74/19 dt. 20.09.2019 U/S-341, 354 of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, detained in jail custody, enlarged on bail and the criminal case is sub-judice and

(iii) Considering the nature and gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him, revocation of his suspension order should rest on the compliance of the final verdict of the court on disposal of the said criminal case.

Under the above noted circumstances, his representation for revocation of order of suspension could not be considered.”

4. It is necessary at this juncture to narrate, in a nutshell, regarding the factual background of the case. The writ petitioner is a Head Master of the school, namely, Kumarti Primary School of Girihandi, District Paschim Medinipur. He was appointed on 30.03.1999. He was promoted to the post of Head Master on 18.12.2002.

5. A criminal case was started against the writ petitioner, pursuant to lodging of an FIR, being All Women Police Station, Jhargram Case No.-74/19 dt. 20.09.2019 under Section 341/354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The petitioner was immediately arrested and subsequently on 30.10.2019 he was enlarged on bail.

6. Since the writ petitioner was detained in custody for more than forty-eight (48) hours, he was deemed to have been suspended from service in terms of Rules 7(2) of the West Bengal Primary Education (conduct of service of teacher of primary school), Rules 2001.

7. Proceedings were started before the criminal court. However, the authorities have not taken care for initiation of any disciplinary proceeding after such deemed suspension of the writ petitioner from his service. Since the writ petitioner’s requests for withdrawal of suspension order went in vain, he preferred an earlier writ petition, being WPA 11276 of 2020. The same was disposed of vide order dated 11.01.2021, wherein the Court directed the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), Jhargram to consider writ petitioner’s representation requesting withdrawal of his suspension order, within a period of three months therefrom. The resultant order is dated 08.04.2021 which is impugned in this case.

8. The concerned respondent has taken up two grounds in the impugned order. Firstly, that the writ petitioner has not been able to produce any supportive documents as regards his contentions in the representation submitted by him. Secondly, the authority had decided that in consideration of the heinous nature and gravity of the alleged offence against the writ petitioner, revocation of his suspension order would not be prudent, in so far as the writ petitioner, being charged with such grave offences, should not be allowed to discharge duties towards society by imparting education in a school, to children and future citizens of the country.

9. Mr. Samim Ahmed, learned counsel is appearing for the writ petitioner. His contention is primarily that the law as settled would not allow any