08.01.2026

Ct. No. 11

rrc

MAT 1563 of 2025

with

IA No. CAN 2 of 2025

(Pradip Kumar Misra Vs. Nikhil Mandal & Ors.)

Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya Mr. Amarendra Chakraborty

Mr. Dipayan Kundu

Mr. Tonmoy Chatterjee

Mr. Argha Banerjee

….. For the appellant

Mr. Arindam Chattopadhyay

Ms. Lipika Chatterjee

….. For the State

Mr. Sunit Kumar Roy

Ms. Susmita Mondal

….. For the writ petitioner/

Respondent

Mr. Aninya Bose

Mr. Mridul Biswas

Ms. Raina Das

…… For the School

Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya

Mr. Bibek Dutta

…… For the W.B.B.S.E.

The present appeal has been preferred challenging

an order dated 11th June, 2025 passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition being WPA 22379 of 2023. The said writ petition was preferred by the guardians of the Jagdala High School (Higher Secondary) (hereinafter referred to as the said school) inter alia praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents ‘to make investigation into the misdeeds of the Respondent NO. 9, if necessary, by initiating appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the said Respondent No. 9, forthwith’. The said

respondent no. 9 was the Headmaster of the said school, who retired during pendency of the writ petition on 30^th June, 2024.

Records reveal that in the writ petition, previously an order was passed on 7th April, 2025 observing, inter alia, that ‘if Board has not forwarded the preliminary enquiry report and other materials which are available before the Board relating to the proposal for initiating disciplinary proceeding against respondent no. 9, same shall be forwarded to the Secretary, School Education Department by ten days from date by the concerned authority of the Board and on receipt of same the Secretary shall take decision whether approval is to be granted as contemplated under the second proviso to Rule 5(3) for initiating disciplinary proceeding against respondent no. 9 or not within a period of three weeks thereafter’. The matter again appeared for consideration on 11^th June, 2025 and the writ petition was ultimately disposed of observing inter alia that ‘in view of grant of approval thereby permitting concerned authority of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent no. 9, it appears that grievance of the petitioners stands redressed’.

Drawing our attention to an order dated 28^th January, 2025 passed by the President, Ad-hoc Committee of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 9/appellant herein submits that without waiting for the audit report, as called for earlier, the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as the Board) could not have taken a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant subject to grant of permission by the Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal.

He further argues that about 350 days after superannuation, the Secretary (Law) School Education Department could not have granted sanction in terms of the second proviso to Rule 5(3) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Appointment, Confirmation, Conduct and Discipline of Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the 2018 Rules) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant by a cryptic order dated 9^th June, 2025 and as a consequence thereof, the appellant’s pensionary benefits have been withheld. Such arguments, as advanced, before the learned single Judge, were glossed over and no finding was returned on the same.

He further submits that the writ petitioners being the guardians of the said school had no locus standi to prefer the writ petition seeking direction upon the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant.

Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners/respondents and Mr. Bose, learned advocate appearing for the school submit that there were serious allegations of financial misappropriation against the appellant