IMPORTANT POINT
A writ petition against a private institution is not maintainable under Article 226 unless it involves public law elements, and delay in raising complaints can undermine the case.

JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the enquiry report dated May 9, 2012, of the Assistant Director of School Education, West Bengal, and has challenged the same in this petition.

2. The said report states that the enquiry team did not find any proof depending upon which a conclusion can be drawn that the petitioner had tendered her resignation on August 18, 2008, under compulsion. It mentions that rather evidence and reasoning show, contrary to that possibility and it appears as a voluntary resignation tendered by the petitioner.

3. On the other hand, the petitioner’s contention is that, she has been compelled and forced to submit her resignation on August 18,2008, regarding which she has sought for redress in this case.

4. Hence, the petitioner has not been satisfied with the report of the enquiry committee, as above and filed the present writ petition.

5. It is found necessary that the facts leading to filing of this writ petition be stated in a nutshell.

6. The petitioner was appointed on February 18, 1984 at G.D.Birla Centre for Education (formally known as Ashok Hall). She has served there till August 18, 2008. Her relationship with the school as an employee and teacher was severed pursuant to a letter of her, that is, dated August 18, 2008, wherefrom it can be learnt that the petitioner, vide the same, has submitted her resignation to the school. Subsequently, she has received her retirement benefits.

7. The situation turned to be different, when on October 31, 2011, the petitioner wrote a letter of complaint to the Director of School Education, Government of West Bengal. In the same she has alleged inter alia of coercive treatment to have been meted out to her by the school authorities. As she has declined to follow irrational and arbitrary instructions, allegedly, she has been forced and compelled to submit a resignation letter immediately. Thus, the writ petitioner has contended that her resignation letter dated August 18, 2008, has not been a voluntary act of her but a result of threat, force and coercion.

8. Petitioner’s letter dated October 31,2011 was followed with another letter of her to the said authority, dated February 2, 2012.

9. The respondent State authorities have taken action upon the letters of complaint of the petitioner, as above and formed an enquiry committee, to enquire into the allegations made therein.

10. Impugned in this case, is the report of the said enquiry committee, dated May 9, 2012.

11. Decision of the enquiry committee through the said report would reflect inter alia as follows :

“1. Miss Sharmila Sen submitted resignation letter dt. 18.8.08.

2. On 18.8.2008 such resignation letter was accepted on behalf of the school.

3. On or about 26.8.08, the school management intimated Miss Sen as regards settlement of her dues amounting to Rs. 65, 181/-, Rs. 4,01,596/- and Rs. 90,681.

4. Miss Sharmila Sen duly acknowledged receipt of such amount and gave a declaration to the school that she has no claim whatsoever nature on any account against the school.

5. The enquiry team does not find any proof depending upon which a conclusion can be drawn that Ms. Sharmila Sen had tendered her resignation on 18.8.2008 under compulsion. Rather evidence & reasoning show contrary to that possibility wherein it may be counted as voluntary resignation.”

12. The writ petitioner was dissatisfied and aggrieved with the same. Hence this writ petition.

13. Mr. Dutta represents the petitioner. He has argued about the impropriety and illegality of the said enquiry report, for the reason of its alleged non-consideration of the attending facts circumstances. He says that had the enquiry committee conducted the enquiry in a proper manner, after considering all the attending facts circumstances, the result of enquiry would have been otherwise. He has particularly given stress to the ‘service manual’ governing the conditions of service of the writ petitioner. A condition thereof, that the service of a permane