JUDGMENT :

Soumen Sen, J.

1. By consent of the parties the appeal and the application are taken up together and disposed of by this order.

2. The appeal is arising out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge, in WP No.7329 of 2022. This writ petition was heard analogously with WPA 3511 of 2022 as the issues were interconnected. However, a composite appeal has been filed by Ratna Mitter, and Anita Nigam being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 8th January, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “said order”) by which both the writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.

3. The learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the enquiry proceeding and disposed of the writ petition by giving liberty to the appellants to file their response to the enquiry report within a period of two weeks from the date of the said order.

4. The appellants are aggrieved by this order.

5. Briefly stated the appellants are the assistant teachers of the Convent of our Lady of Providence Girl’s High School (in short, ‘the school’). The said school was established, run and administered by the Christian Community and accordingly it claims privileges and the minority status under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

6. The appellants faced disciplinary proceeding for their alleged misconduct. Disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioners by the Management of the said school in accordance with the rules related to terms of employment and service conditions of teaching and non-teaching staff of the Convent of our Lady of Providence Girls’ High School (hereinafter referred to as “the service rules”) framed by the Management of the said school.

7. The writ petitioners were initially placed under suspension pending the disciplinary proceedings. The Secretary of the school sent a proposal to the Board by a letter dated 11th May, 2016 seeking approval to the proposal of suspension against the two petitioners for alleged misconduct. On receipt of the aforesaid proposal the President of West Bengal School Education fixed a hearing. On 28th December, 2016 upon hearing the parties the President did not approve the proposal for suspension of Ratna Mitter, however, the school was not debarred from initiating disciplinary proceedings against the incumbent as per norms. The said approval was obtained in terms of Rule 28(9)(vii)(a) of the Management Rules. The charge-sheet was issued upon the delinquents. It appears that a writ petition was filed being WP No.13226 (w) of 2016 after the initiation of the proceeding alleging that in the domestic enquiry in spite of request the writ petitioners were not allowed to have legal assistance. The said writ was disposed of on 16th November, 2016 whereby the prayer for assistance of lawyers in the domestic enquiry was allowed. Being aggrieved by the said direction the school preferred an appeal being MAT 1800 of 2016 along with an application for stay being CAN 1027 of 2016. The appeal was allowed, however, assistance of any of the colleagues of the writ petitioner during domestic enquiry was allowed. The school is recognised by the Board in terms of provisions contained in Section 45(2)(b) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In terms of provisions contained in Section 45(2)(d) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act (hereinafter referred to “as the said Act”), the Management Rules have been framed laying down provisions of composition of power and duties of the Managing Committee of the said school. Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules conferred power on managing committee subject to approval of the Board to remove or dismiss permanent and temporary teaching and non-teaching staff by initiation of disciplinary proceedings and conduct in the manner as prescribed therein.

8. The Hon’ble Division Bench noticing the aforesaid fact in MAT 1800 of 2016 had expressed surprise with regard to t