Minority institutions are not bound by external regulations like the Rules of 2018, provided they ensure fair hearing in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

BISWAJIT BASU, J.

1. The issues under consideration in these three writ petitions are inter-mingled; as such, they are taken up for analogous hearing and disposal.

2. The Convent of Our Lady of Providence Girls High School (hereinafter referred to as ‘the school’ in short), is established, run and administered by the Christian Community; as such, enjoys the privileges envisaged under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

3. The school, in the first two writ petitions being WPA 7894 of 2022 and WPA 7897 of 2022, inter alia, has sought for a declaration that the provisions of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Appointment, Confirmation, Conduct and Discipline of Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2018” in short) are ultra vires to the Constitution of India.

4. Two Assistant Teachers of the school are the petitioners of the third writ petition being WPA 7329 of 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “the petitioners”) they are facing disciplinary proceedings for their alleged misconduct. The Enquiry Officer appointed in relation to the said disciplinary proceedings had invited the petitioners to participate in the enquiry but the petitioners, though initially had participated, had subsequently refused, alleging that it was not being conducted in terms of the Rules of 2018. The enquiry officer, however, upon conclusion of the said enquiry, had filed his report holding that all charges against the petitioners have been proved; the same was communicated to the petitioners vide letter dated January 27, 2022.

5. The petitioners, challenging the said enquiry report, had filed two separate writ petitions being W.P.A. 3511 of 2022 and W.P.A. 3512 of 2022, which were admitted and a returnable date was fixed, directing the parties to exchange their affidavits in the meantime. The Disciplinary Authority, however, during the pendency of the said writ petitions, had concluded the proceedings by imposing penalty of termination of service. The petitioners, by filing two applications in the said two pending writ petitions, had brought the said fact to the notice of the learned Single Judge; in pursuance thereof, the said writ petitions and the applications thereto, vide orders dated April 08, 2022, were disposed of by setting aside the orders of termination of service of the petitioners.

6. The school had assailed the said decision of the learned Single Judge in appeals being MAT 698 of 2022 and MAT 617 of 2022. The Hon’ble Division Bench on August 23, 2022 had disposed of the said two appeals by restoring the said two writ petitions and by directing disposal of the said matters on merit after exchange of affidavits by the parties, and till such time, the operation of the order(s) of termination of the service of the petitioners were stayed.

7. The school, challenging the said orders of the Hon’ble Division Bench, had preferred SLP(C) No. 22627 of 2022 and SLP(C) No. 22516 of 2022 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by a common judgment and order dated January 03, 2023, had disposed of the said Special Leave Petitions by setting aside the said orders of termination of service of the petitioners, with a liberty to the disciplinary authority to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings after serving copy of the enquiry report to the petitioners and to take decision independently after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law and the said writ petitions were also disposed of.

8. The school thereafter under a letter dated January 07, 2023 had again served the said enquiry report and had requested the petitioners to submit their replies. The petitioners, instead of filing their replies to the enquiry report; by their letter dated January 12, 2023, had informed the disciplinary authority that ‘So far Enquiry Report is concerned, appropriate steps will be taken within the stipulated time’; they, however had refused to