JUDGMENT Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J: - The appellant before us, Sk. Alauddin, moved an application under Art 226 of the Constitution of India on 20th July, 1981. The case of the appellant in the said writ application was that the petitioner was a permanent Assistant Teacher of Jafully High School, Midnapore. On 2nd January, 1981 when the petitioner went to the school the petitioner did not find the Attendance Register and he was told that the new Attendance Register would be made available next day; when the petitioner went to the school, it is alleged that the headmaster told him that after a meeting with the villagers to be held on 4th January, 1981 the petitioner would be informed as to whether the petitioner would be allowed to sign the Attendance Register or not. On 5th January, 1981, the headmaster informed the petitioner that he could not allow the petitioner to sign in the Attendance Register because of the pressure of the villagers. The headmaster also refused to pay the salary to the petitioner for the month of December. 1980, although such salary had been paid to all other teachers. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote a letter to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Midnapore requesting him to take necessary steps so that the petitioner might sign the Teachers Attendance Register and get his salary for the month of December, 1980. In response to the said letter of the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Midnapore by his letter dated 29th January, 1981 directed the headmaster to send a report to him on the allegations made by the petitioner that he was not allowed to sign the attendance register, nor his salary for the month of December, 1980 was paid. The headmaster was advised that after the petitioner attended the school he should not be prevented from putting his signature in the Attendance Register and he should be paid his salary. In spite of the said direction from the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Midnapore it is alleged that the petitioner was not allowed to put his signature in the attendance register or take classes though the petitioner attended the school as usual. In spite of the said direction from the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Midnapore it is alleged that the petitioner was not allowed to put his signature in the attendance register or take classes though the petitioner attended the school as usual. It is alleged that the petitioner wrote a number of letters to the secretary and headmaster of the school requesting them to allow him to sign in the Teachers’ attendance register and take his classes, but neither the headmaster not the secretary paid any heed to the requests made by the petitioner. A copy of the said letter was sent to the headmaster of the school as well to the petitioner requesting them to remain present in the enquiry with their papers, documents and evidence. The said Assistant Inspector of Schools (S.E.) held an enquiry on 28th April, 1981and sent a report containing his findings to the District Inspector of School (S.E.) had stated that there was an allegation against the petitioner that he has some affairs with a Hindu widow. The teachers and the students who were present at the time of enquiry had said that the petitioner was absent from the school since 2nd January, 1981, whereas the people belonging to the Muslim community said that the petitioner had been attending the school regularly, but the headmaster did not allow him to sign the register. The persons belonging to the Muslim community also submitted a representation to the Assistant Inspector of School at the time of enquiry. On the day when the enquiry was held on 28th April, 1981, although the headmaster gave the attendance register to the petitioner for recording his signature, one Patit Paban Bera did not allow him to do so. It was also reported by the Assistant Inspector of Schools that a show cause notice was his explanation denying the charges brought against him. The managing committee allegedly was not satisfied with the explanation and took a decision at the meeting held on 12th April, 1981 to issue another show cause notice. At the date when the enquiry was held by the Assistant Inspector of School such show cause notice was not received by the petitioner. The managing committee allegedly was not satisfied with the explanation and took a decision at the meeting held on 12th April, 1981 to issue another show cause notice. At the date when the enquiry was held by the Assistant Inspector of School such show cause notice was not received by the petitioner. After going through the attendance register and other evidence, the Assistant Inspector of School found that from January, 1980 to December, 1980 the petitioner was absent in the school for 80 days as against the total working days of 244. Although he applied for leave of absence, the nature of leave was not mentioned. It was recommended that the petitioner should be allowed leave according to the Leave Rules if he mentions the nature of the leave, otherwise leave of absence for 80 days should be treated as leave with out pay. After considering the evidence the Assistant Inspector of School found that there was no specific charge against the petitioner. The blame or charge as brought against him regarding his loose character is vague. The report, inter alia, stated as follows: “The Headmaster has become the prey of the Committee and the local guardians. Though he gave the attendance register on 28.4.81 to sign in my presence he did not allow Sk. Alsuddin toe sign under public pressure. In my opinion, the charges brought against him are concocted and vague. The School authority may be directed to allow Sk. Alauddin to work in the School and arrangements may be taken for payment of his salary as admissible as per rules. Sk. Alauddin may also be directed to be regular in his attendance in the School” 2. In spite of the said report, no action was taken and the headmaster of the school did not allow the petitioner to put his signature in the attendance register and did not give him his salaries. On 24th June, 1981, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Midnapore directed the Secretary of the school as follows:- “In connection with the matter of Sk. Alauddin, Assistant Teacher of his School, the undersigned has to request him to see if the absence of the teacher from school duty be regularised by sanctioning leave on submission of necessary explanation by the teacher of his frequent absence. As Sk. Alauddin, Assistant Teacher of his School, the undersigned has to request him to see if the absence of the teacher from school duty be regularised by sanctioning leave on submission of necessary explanation by the teacher of his frequent absence. As Sk. Alauddin is attending school now he may be allowed to put signature in attendance register for the period of his presence without adopting any disciplinary action against him as per rules if there be sufficient ground for taking such action school authority cannot restrain him from putting signature in attendance register if he attends his duty” 3. The District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) also wrote to the petitioner on 24th June, 1981 to the following effect:- “In connection with the above the undersigned has to inform him that the enquiry report and the report of the Headmaster of the school reveal that he is very irregular in his duty and he has bee frequently absenting and period of leave prayed for. As a result the Managing Committee could not sanction leave for his absence. He may be treated as on duty only when he attends meeting of Panchayat. But the report reveals that he was absent for 80 days, out of 244 working days in 1980. His such frequent absence from duty may hamper the education of the pupils and the interest of the school. If in such situation the school authority takes any disciplinary action against him the undersigned has nothing to do However, the school authority has been requested to regularise his absence by sanctioning leave obtaining necessary explanation for his such absence and to allow him to put signature in Teachers’ Attendance Register during the period of his presence in school duty. He may contact the School authority accordingly. 19.6.81 Sd/-District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Midnapore” 4. Thus the grievance of the appellant in the writ application was that he regularly attended the school but he was not allowed to sign the attendance register nor was he paid his salary. Accordingly the appellant moved the said writ application on 28th July, 1981, inter alia, praying that the District Inspector of Schools should be commanded to direct the headmaster and the secretary of the school to allow the petitioner to put his signature in the attendance register and to pay his salaries uptodate. 5. Accordingly the appellant moved the said writ application on 28th July, 1981, inter alia, praying that the District Inspector of Schools should be commanded to direct the headmaster and the secretary of the school to allow the petitioner to put his signature in the attendance register and to pay his salaries uptodate. 5. The said application was ultimately disposed of on 18th May, 1983 by Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. by the following order:- “The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that in spite of the order passed by the District Inspector of School (S.E.) Midnapore, the authorities of Jofully High School are not allowing the petitioner to attend the school nor he has been paid his salaries. In such circumstance, the petitioner prays for appropriate writs against the office bearers of the school. The law is now well settled that no writ lies against the members of the managing (?) this writ jurisdiction, no writ can be issued against those members in such circumstance, I am unable to allow the prayer of the petitioner. But then the District Inspector of Schools and for that matter the other authorities have adequate powers under the law to take action against any managing committee if they violate their legal and valid orders. The petitioner, therefore, may move the authorities and if the authorities are so moved, they may also take action in accordance with law against the recalcitrant members of the managing committee, if the allegations of the petitioner are true. With this observation I dispose of the writ application. Sd/- Monoj Kumar Mukherjee” 6. The writ application was served on all the respondents including the headmaster, the secretary and the President of the school being the respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 respectively. An affidavit of service was also filed. On 2nd December, 1981 a direction was given for filing affidavits. But no affidavit was filed by any of the respondents. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 18th May, 1983, an appeal was filed by the appellant. 5, 6 and 7 respectively. An affidavit of service was also filed. On 2nd December, 1981 a direction was given for filing affidavits. But no affidavit was filed by any of the respondents. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 18th May, 1983, an appeal was filed by the appellant. In the said appeal, an application for injunction was also file praying, inter alia, that the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.), Midnapore and the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education should be directed to ask the Managing Committee of Jofully High School to allow the appellant to perform his duties as Assistant Teacher of the said school and to pay his arrears of salary and allowances and allow him to sign attendance register of the school. On 18th August, 1983, the rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why pending the disposal of the said appeal preferred by the learned trial Judge should no by stayed and the appellant be allowed to perform his duty as Assistant Teacher of the school concerned and paid his arrear and current salaries and allowances On 4th October, 1983, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Midnapore was directed to make ad hoc payment of Rs. 2,500/- to the appellant if he was satisfied that the said amount was legally payable to the appellant on account of arrear of his salaries. 8. An affidavit in opposition was also filed to the said stay application for injunction on behalf of respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7, the Headmaster, Secretary and the President of the School respectively. In the said affidavit it was, inter alia, stated that the petitioner was elected Prodhan of the Deriachak Gram Panchayat in the year 1980. Having been elected as Prodhan the petitioner started absenting from the school without leave. The petitioner was absent from the school for about 80 days. The petitioner made application on 17th November, 1980 and 2nd December, 1980 for leave. It is alleged that on 10th November, 1980 the guardians of the said school made a mass petition to the Secretary of the School alleging characterless-ness of the appellant. Some boys and girls of the said schools also made an application before the headmaster against the appellant stating his bad and improper activities and they wanted to boycott his classes. It is alleged that on 10th November, 1980 the guardians of the said school made a mass petition to the Secretary of the School alleging characterless-ness of the appellant. Some boys and girls of the said schools also made an application before the headmaster against the appellant stating his bad and improper activities and they wanted to boycott his classes. The staff council of the said school also held a meeting of the said school on 20th November, 1980 and discussed the complaints of the guardians and students and took a resolution so that appropriate steps should be taken against the appellant. On 7th December, 1980 the Managing Committee adopted a resolution to issue show cause notice to the appellant for his unauthorised absence. It has been alleged that on 27th January, 1981 the appellant replied to the said show cause notice and requested the secretary of the school forwarded the copies of the complaint to the appellant for his comments and the appellant denied the allegations. It has been denied that the appellant was prevented from entering the school of from putting his signature in the attendance register. 9. On 29th February, 1984, we passed the following order:- “We fail to understand why the petitioner, Sk. Alauddin, has not been allowed to join the school and paid his salary since December, 1980 in spite of the order of the Assistant Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Midnapore dated May 4, 1981 directing the headmaster to allow the petitioner to work in the school and pay his salary as admissible under the Rules. In that order also it was stated that the charges brought against the petitioner were concocted and vague. Be that as it may, the petitioner has not been put under suspension and no disciplinary proceeding has been started against him. In any event, the charges have been found to be concocted by the Assistant Inspector of Schools. In the circumstances, we direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties an Assistant Teacher of Jofully High School. Further, the respondents nos. 1, 5 and 6 are directed to pay to the petitioner all this arrears of salary within four weeks of the communication of this order to them and they shall continue to pay the salary of the petitioner as per rules pending the disposal of the appeal. Further, the respondents nos. 1, 5 and 6 are directed to pay to the petitioner all this arrears of salary within four weeks of the communication of this order to them and they shall continue to pay the salary of the petitioner as per rules pending the disposal of the appeal. The rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. There will be no order for costs” 10. Thereafter an application was filed on 8th March, 1984 by the respondents nos. 5 to 7 for recalling of the said order dated 29th February, 1984 on the ground that the learned Advocate Sri P. N. Patil could not attend the Court on 29th February, 1984 an application for contempt was filed for not complying with our order dated 29th February, 1984. By order dated 3rd May, 1984 we disposed of both the applications for contempt as well as application for recalling and/or reviewing effect:- “After hearing the learned Advocates of the parties we modify our order February 29, 1984 and direct the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Midnapore, the headmaster and the Managing Committee of the school to pay to the petitioner all the arrear salary uptodate within three weeks from date except the salary for 80 (eighty) days during which it is alleged he was absent from the school. The headmaster, secretary and the Managing Committee are hereby directed to allow the petitioner to join the school and perform his duties as the Assistant Teacher of the school. This order virtually disposes of the appeal. The appeal is treated as on day’s list and both the appeal and the applications are disposed of as above. There will be no order for costs” 11. Even after the order dated 3rd May, 1984 was passed by us, the appellant was not allowed to join and discharge his duties as Assistant Teacher of the school nor he was paid his arrear salary. It appears that the District Inspector of School (S.E.) Midnapore released a sum of Rs. 39,868/- to the school authorities for payment to the appellant to wards his arrear salary from December, 1980 to February, 1984, excluding the salary for 80 days. Although the funds were released by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Midnapore, the school authorities did not pay the appellant the sum of Rs. 69,868/- (?) or any portion thereof. 39,868/- to the school authorities for payment to the appellant to wards his arrear salary from December, 1980 to February, 1984, excluding the salary for 80 days. Although the funds were released by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Midnapore, the school authorities did not pay the appellant the sum of Rs. 69,868/- (?) or any portion thereof. Accordingly, on 13th June, 1984, an application was filed by the appellant for a direction upon the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) to pay directly to the appellant the arrear salaries and to pay the current salary of the appellant in accordance with arrear salaries and to pay the current salary to the appellant in accordance with the rules. The said application was disposed of on 2nd July, 1984 by directing the District Inspector of School (S.M.) Midnapore to pay directly to the appellant the arrears of salary from March, 1984 to July, 1984. It was also directed that the appellant should be paid within four weeks from the date of said order. An application was also filed on 17th June, 1984 for issuance of rule of contempt for violation of the order dated 3rd May, 1984 passed by this Court Upon the said application, contempt rule was issued on 29th June, 1984. On 11th September, 1984 another application was filed by the appellant for a direction upon the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) to pay directly to the appellant current salary from August, 1984 as well as for payment of arrear salary from 1981 to 1984. Thereafter, an application was filed on 13th November, 1984 by the headmaster, secretary and the President of the school being the respondents Nos. 5, 6, and 7 respectively for modification of the order dated 3rd May, 1984. It was alleged in the said application that this Court only took into consideration 80 days of absence prior to 1981, but since 1981 the appellant was allegedly on authorize absence foe 3 years 4 months and 22 days and accordingly no order should have been directly for payment of salary to the appellant. Both the said applications were disposed of by the following order on 30th November, 1984 :- "As per our order, the dishonoured cheque was handed over by the petitioner to the headmaster of the school. Both the said applications were disposed of by the following order on 30th November, 1984 :- "As per our order, the dishonoured cheque was handed over by the petitioner to the headmaster of the school. No further cheque has yet been issued to the petitioner as directed by us in our order dated August 10, 1984. Both the headmaster and the secretary of the school are present in Court as identified by Mr. Jamini K. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the members of the Managing Committee including the headmaster and the secretary. The secretary of school is directed to issue a fresh chequc for a sum of Rs. 39,868/- to the petitioner on Monday next. The petitioner shall attend school and collect the cheque from the headmaster. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall go on attending the school every day and the members of the Managing Committee of the School shall not prevent the petitioner from signing the attendance register or performing his duties as the teacher of the school. The secretary and the headmaster are also directed to pay the current salary of the petitioner for the months of October and November 1984 after the same are released by the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Midnapore, who is directed to release the same as expeditiously as possible. The application is disposed of as above." 12. On 11th December, 1984, a further order was passed to the following effect:- “As prayed for by Mr. Sahid Ali Khan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, we direct the secretary and the headmaster of the school to hand over the cheque as mentioned in our order dated November, 30, 1984 to Mr. Sahid Ali Khan, Advocate, who will report to the secretary or headmaster of the school at the school premises for the purpose on January 2, 1985 at 10.30A.M." 13. Thereafter on 11th January, 1985 we passed the following order:- “It is reported by the learned Advocate Mr. Sahid Ali Khan that despite the order of this Court dated December 19, 1984 the Secretary and the headmaster of school did not comply with the said order and hand over the cheque as directed, although the learned Advocate took pains to go the school situated at Panskura in the District of Midnapore. Mr. Sahid Ali Khan that despite the order of this Court dated December 19, 1984 the Secretary and the headmaster of school did not comply with the said order and hand over the cheque as directed, although the learned Advocate took pains to go the school situated at Panskura in the District of Midnapore. Mr. Jamini Kumar Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the secretary and the headmaster of the school prays for one opportunity till Friday next so that he can communicate our displeasure to the said secretary and the headmaster and the inform them of the seriousness of the matter" 14. On 25th January, 1985 the following order was passed by as :- "Let this Rule come up for healing on 8th of February, 1985 at 3 p.m. The contemners are directed to remain present on that date at that time. It appears that a cheque for Rs. 39,868/- which wall drawn by the headmaster and on of the teacher’s representative had been returned back by the United Bank of India Macheda Branch on the ground that the drawers' signatures on the cheque differ. It is submitted by Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that it is a deliberate sot on the part of the said drawers. Further, it has been submitted by the learned Advocate that since October, 1984 no payment has been made to the petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.) Midnapore to make payment of the salary for the months commencing from October to December, 1984 directly to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible." 15. Thereafter on 8th February, 1985, the following order was passed by us:- "Pursuant to our order dated 25th January, 85 the contemners ace present in court. The learned Advocate who was appealing on behalf of the contemners has not appeared before us Mr. Alok Banerjee, an Advocate of this Court has banded up to us a certified copy of the order of the Supreme Court dated February, 4, 1985 passed in petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 266 of 1985 from the judgment and order dated 3rd May, 1984 and 19th December, 1984 passed by this Court. The said order of the Supreme Court is as follows:- "Issue notice on the S. L. P. as well as on delay. The said order of the Supreme Court is as follows:- "Issue notice on the S. L. P. as well as on delay. Returnable on 18.2.85 Notice to indicate that the matter will be disposed of finally CMP No. 425/84 allowed Interim stay on payments as directed." 16. Me Aloke Banerjee states before us that he has handed over the said order of the Supreme Court as requested by the clerk of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the contemners. He has no instruction to appear for the contemners and he is not aware of any fact in regard to the said special leave petition that has been filed before the Supreme Court. The petitioner also does not know anything about the matter. After some time, Mr. Jamini Kumar Banerjee who appeared on behalf of the contemners on the last occasion comes and states that be has no instruction in the matter. It may be recalled at this stage that the contemners agreed to pay to the teacher, Sk. Alauddin, and issued cheques to him which have been dishonoured on two occasions. Today also we have tried to ascertain through Mr. Alok Banerjee whether they are agreeable to issue a fresh cheque in favour of the teacher concerned. It appears that they are unwilling to issue any cheque to the teacher concerned in view of the said order of the Supreme Court. In the order of the Supreme Court it is stated “Interim stay on payments as directed” However, we are not in a position to say whether the proceedings for contempt have been stayed by the Supreme Court or not. We therefore, adjourn the matter for period of two weeks so as to enable the petitioner to ascertain the real position. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned till 1st March, 1985. 17. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner states before us that in spite of the laid order of the Supreme Court no payment has been made to the petitioner. It has been prayed on behalf of the petitioner that the headmaster and the secretary of the school should be directed to make payment to the petitioner. The teacher concerned, It is submitted by the learned Advocate, has been suffering great hardship on account of non-payment of his arrears of salary by the headmaster and the secretary of the school. It has been prayed on behalf of the petitioner that the headmaster and the secretary of the school should be directed to make payment to the petitioner. The teacher concerned, It is submitted by the learned Advocate, has been suffering great hardship on account of non-payment of his arrears of salary by the headmaster and the secretary of the school. We are afraid we Cannot direct payment of salary to the teacher unless the matter is clarified by the Supreme Court or a specific direction in that regard is given. 11. The headmaster, the President of the Managing Committee being the respondents nos. 5 and 7 and another member Bishnupada Adak moved the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition against the order passed on 3rd May, 1984 and an order dated 19th December, 1984 stated to have been passed by us No order was passed on 19th December, 1984 The appellants before the Supreme Court perhaps referred to the order dated 11th December, 1984. 19. On 25th February, 1985 the Supreme Court passed the following order:- “Leave granted. Since a disputed question of fact was raised before us whether the respondent No. 1 was absent from school only for 80 days or for nearly three years, we feel the proper order to make would be to direct the appellants to deposit the amount of Rs. 39,868/- In cash in the High Court within two weeks from today and it will be open to the respondent No.1 to withdraw the amount on furnishing the security to the satisfaction or the Registrar. We set aside the impugned orders of the Division Bench and remand the matter back to it for disposal of the appeal on merits including the question about the maintainability of the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 and the actual period of absentism on the part of the respondent No. 1. Appeal is disposed of accordingly." 20. As it appeals from the said order dated 25th February, 1985 of the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court set aside the orders dated 3rd May, 1984 and 11th December 1984 (not 19th December, 1984) the Supreme Court did not, however, set aside the order dated 29th February, 1984 whereby the appeal was disposed of by this Court. 21. As it appeals from the said order dated 25th February, 1985 of the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court set aside the orders dated 3rd May, 1984 and 11th December 1984 (not 19th December, 1984) the Supreme Court did not, however, set aside the order dated 29th February, 1984 whereby the appeal was disposed of by this Court. 21. After the said order was passed by the Supreme Court on 8th March, 1985 we directed that the matter be set down for tearing on 12th April, 1985. The appeal was thereafter heard fresh. 22. Mr. P. N. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 has not seriously contended that the writ application is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Manmohan Singh Jaital v. Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh, reported in AIR 1985 SC 364 . There, the Supreme Court held that the aided schools receiving 95% of expenses by way of grant from the public exchequer and whose employees have received the statutory protection under the Act and which is subject to the regulations made by the Education Department of the Union Territory of Chandigarh as also the appointment of headmaster to be valid must be approved by the Director of Public Instruction, would certainly be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. 23. In this case, the appellant has been working in an aided school and the entire salary of the teaching and non-teaching staff of such school is paid by the government. The school is governed by the Rules framed under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 as amended, which are known as Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rule 1969. Under these Rules, the appointment of the teaching and non-leaching staff must be approved by the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) and for dismissal or removal of any staff or for that matter for any disciplinary proceeding the approval of the District Inspector of Schools or other competent authority under the said Rules has to be obtained. Thus the school is subject to the regulations made by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. The writ application, therefore, is maintainable. Thus the school is subject to the regulations made by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. The writ application, therefore, is maintainable. In any event, the appellant/writ petitioner moved the writ application, inter alia, praying that the District Inspector of Schools should be commanded to direct the headmaster and the secretary of the school to allow the petitioner to put his signature on the attendance register and to pay his salaries uptodate. The writ was in effect directed against the statutory authorities. The that view of the matter also this writ application is maintainable. 24. The other contention which was raised by Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the respondents Nos. 5,6 end 7 is that this Court should consider whether the appellant is entitled to the salary for the entire period as according to the school authorities the appellant did not attend the school for about three years. The appellant, according to the said respondents was not prevented by the headmaster or the secretary from attending the school. If anyone else not connected with the school prevented him, It was not the fault of the school authorities. It is contended that there was certain allegation against the appellant and perhaps that was the reason why the appellant was not allowed to enter the school or sign the attendance register at the instance of certain local leader. 25. On the other hand, Mr. B. C. Dutt, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant bas submitted that the appellant regularly attended the school but he was not allowed to sign the attendance register nor he was allowed to take any class. That is why the writ application was moved before this Court. The appellant had done what could have been done by him and it was not his fault if he could not take class because of village politics. 26. We have considered the rival contentions. We have also gone through the records produced before us. On 7th of December, 1980, the Managing Committee considered certain allegation concerning moral character of the appellant. The Managing Committee also considered that the appellant being the Prodhan of Village Panchayat was not available in the school. His absence from the school was unauthorised. We have considered the rival contentions. We have also gone through the records produced before us. On 7th of December, 1980, the Managing Committee considered certain allegation concerning moral character of the appellant. The Managing Committee also considered that the appellant being the Prodhan of Village Panchayat was not available in the school. His absence from the school was unauthorised. It was, therefore, decided that a show cause notice should be issued to him asking him his explanation for his irregular attendance and unauthorised absence from school duties Accordingly, on 5th of January, 1981 a show Cause notice was issued. The said thaw cause notice dated 5th of January, 1981 is in the following terms:- "From the Teachers' Attendance of the school it is revealed that you remained absent from duty from 17.11.80/30.11.80, 2.12.80/10.12.80 and from 12.12.80 to 31.12.80 without sufficient ground required under leave rules. This is extremely detrimental to the interest of the institution and to the pupils as a whole. It is not possible for the school to grant any concession to any Prodhan devoting time in the general activities of the Gram Panchayat causing inconvenience to the smooth running of the school. As per Board's orders supported by G. O. Special Casual Leave may be granted to the sProdhan or member of the G. P. for the meetings he attended. He is therefore directed to show cause why necessary steps should not be taken against him for his absence on the day at mentioned above" 27. The appellant replied to the said show cause notice and stated that he bad submitted leave applications to the headmaster for the days be bad remained absent. It was also stated that he was not absent 'willingly or deliberately' He requested that his leave might be regularised under the Leave Rules. 28. On 6th January, 1981 the secretary of the school forwarded copies of the petition containing complaint lodged against the appellant by a few students of the school and guardians and persons allegedly interested in education. The appellant also replied to the said petitions of complaint and emphatically denied the allegations contained therein. 28. On 6th January, 1981 the secretary of the school forwarded copies of the petition containing complaint lodged against the appellant by a few students of the school and guardians and persons allegedly interested in education. The appellant also replied to the said petitions of complaint and emphatically denied the allegations contained therein. It may be mentioned that the allegations made in the said petitions of compliant concerned his moral character On 12th April, 1984 a meeting of the managing committee was held which considered that the explanations furnished by the appellant were not satisfactory both as regards his absence from the school and about his moral character as well. It was, therefore, resolved to issue further show cause notice to the appellant. Accordingly, on 15th April, 1981 another show cause notice was issued to tile appellant, inter alia, to the following effect :- "He was asked to submit replies to a show cause notice served by the undersigned under Memo No. 1/81 dated 5.1.81. His replies were not at all satisfactory. His comments in reference to our memo no. 2/81 dated 6.1.81 on the petitions of complaints submitted by the students and guardians separately were also vague and indistinct. It is further extremely astonishing that he has not been attending the school up till now, uninterruptedly. It speaks of negligence of duty and utter indiscipline. His activities are against the interest of the institution. He is, therefore, directed to show cause why necessary disciplinary action will not be taken against him for his long absence without notice and sufficient grounds" 29. A reminder was also issued on 16th May, 1981 On 29th May, 1981 the appellant wrote a letter to the headmaster alleging that the headmaster was not allowing him to put his signature. In the Teachers' Attendance Register and to take his class, although he was attending the school regularly and on usual time. It was also stated therein that his salary from the months of December, 1980 and January to April 1981 had not been paid. He, therefore, requested that he should be allowed to put his signature in the attendance register and his salary should also be paid. The headmaster, however, by his letter dated 12th June, 1981 denied the said allegations. 30. He, therefore, requested that he should be allowed to put his signature in the attendance register and his salary should also be paid. The headmaster, however, by his letter dated 12th June, 1981 denied the said allegations. 30. From the show cause notice dated 15th April, 1981 it is evident that the appellant was attending the school but not 'uninterruptedly.' The Assistant Inspector of Schools who held inquiry on the allegations made by the appellant found that the allegations against his character were vague and concocted and the headmaster "became the prey of the committee and the local guardians". Even in his presence the petitioner was prevented from putting his signature in the attendance register under public pressure. If the case of the school authorities that the petitioner had not been attending the school for years together is correct then at least some disciplinary proceedings would have been taken against him by the school authorities. The school authorities did not consider it necessary to initiate any disciplinary proceeding against the appellant for his alleged unauthorised absence allegedly for three years. It appears from the minute book of the managing committee that on 7th of June, 1981 a decision was taken that since the appellant failed to give reply to the show Cause notice dated 15th April, 1981 and reminder dated 16th May, 1981 charge-sheet should be issued against him for dismissal from service. Nothing was done thereafter. After the order dated 29th February, 1984 and 3rd May, 1984 were passed by this Court, a meeting was held by the managing committee on 12th May, 1984. It was recorded in the said meeting that the appellant by marrying a Hindu widow made him object of hatred of the students, teachers, guardians and public and that he was guilty of moral turpitude presumably because he married a Hindu widow. It is further recorded in the laid meeting that even after the orders were passed by this Court on 29th February, 1984 and 3rd May, 1984 the appellant did not attend the school. It was, therefore, resolved to issue show cause notice to the appellant for various misconduct allegedly committed by the appellant. On 21st July, 1984 a show cause notice to the following effect was issued to the appellant. It was, therefore, resolved to issue show cause notice to the appellant for various misconduct allegedly committed by the appellant. On 21st July, 1984 a show cause notice to the following effect was issued to the appellant. "This is to inform you that you have been remaining absent from your duty as an Assistant teacher of this institution for a period of 3 years 5 months 10 days from 12.12.80 to 21.7.84 causing detriment to the interest of the students, guardians and the institution as a whole and you have taken resort to harass the school authorities this way and that way. The amount of the negligence of your duty and breach of trust to the pupils and the school authority the degree of your arrogance end indiscipline, the mala fide activities telling upon the interest of the locality are unworthy of a teacher without any conviction. Recently you have gone so far as to violate the orders of the Hon'bla High Court passed in disposing of C. R. No. 2311(M) of 1983 having not joined the school as yet. This is extremely bad in the eye of law. Hence I am directed by the Managing Committee to show cause why necessary disciplinary action will not be taken against you. The reply to this show cause notice must reach the undersigned within a week from the date of your receipt. Show cause notices were given to you on several occasions but it came to be of no effect" 31. On 7th December, 1981, a resolution was ado pled by the Managing Committee of the school alleging that the appellant was absent from the school without leave. At that time the appellant was also working as prodhan of the Gram Panchayat and accordingly the leave was asked for. It was found that against the working days of 244, the appellant was absent for 80 days and his leave was net regularized. Having regard to the said fact, we directed that the appellant would not be entitled to salary for 80 day for which he remained absent. Although the writ application was moved on July, 1981, no affidavit was filed by the respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 and ultimately the matter was disposed of some time in May, 1983. In the Appeal Court affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. Although the writ application was moved on July, 1981, no affidavit was filed by the respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 and ultimately the matter was disposed of some time in May, 1983. In the Appeal Court affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 it is significant that in the said affidavit it was only stated that the appellant had not been discharging his duties as teacher. In that affidavit it was only mentioned that he was absent for 80 days. It is only after the order dated 3rd May, 1984 was passed by us that an application was mad for modification of the said order, wherein for the first time it was alleged that the appellant did not attend the school for more than 3 years. It is difficult for us to swallow this story On 7th December, 1981, another show cause notice was issued against the appellant which forwarded certain complaints made by certain guardians and certain other persons of the locality concerning the character of the appellant. As indicated earlier, the Assistant Inspector of schools found and held that such allegation was vague and concocted and there was no substance. As a matter of fact, the appellant married a Hindu widow which is neither a misconduct nor a moral turpitude. This was the starting point of the trouble and from the report of the Assistant Inspector of Schools. It is evident that the local politics placed a vital role and the was not allowed to attend the school. If the appellant was prevented from attending the school by the so-called leaders of the locality and the headmaster did not help him in getting him back to the school, it cannot be said that the appellant was absent from the school. The question of his absence must be determined in the context of the facts and circumstances of this case. If the case of the Managing Committee is correct that the appellant did not attend the school for more than years then they ought to have started disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and dismissed him from service. It is difficult to accept the story that the appellant a permanent teacher, would give up his meaus of livelihood by not attending the the school at his peril. More so when be was not acting as Prodhan of the Gram Panchayat. It is difficult to accept the story that the appellant a permanent teacher, would give up his meaus of livelihood by not attending the the school at his peril. More so when be was not acting as Prodhan of the Gram Panchayat. The narration of the events would show how our orders have been flouted by the headmaster and the Managing Committee before any order of stay was obtained from the Supreme Court. The school authorities are determined not to allow the appellant to resume his dudes. The allegation against the petitioner was that he being a Muslim, married a Hindu widow which enraged the feelings of the Hindu community. Such an act cannot be a misconduct in the performance of his duties, as an Assistant Teacher of a school be has not committed any offence by marrying a Hindus of the locality failed to do. This cannot be characterised either as a moral turpitude or misconduct in the performance of the duties of the teacher. It is not for the headmaster or the Secretary of the school to advise the appellant as to whom should he marry. It is his personal choice. So long such choice is not illegal under the law or constitution, there can not the any misconduct or moral turpitude in such a marriage. The headmaster should not have been a party to such a dispute. His conduct cannot be supported by any rhyme or reason. We have to record our grave disapproval of the manner in which certain applications were obtained from the students of the school. Five students of class V of which two are girls, four students of Class VI, three students of Class VII, ten students of Class VII of which five are girls and four students of Class IX allegedly made a petition before the headmaster of the school against the appellant alleging that he was involved in “dishonest activities and as such the students lost their respect and regard for him” It is not known why the students o tender age were involved in such a dispute. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the appellant attended the school but he was prevented from putting his signature in his signature in the attendance register and from taking classes. 32. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the appellant attended the school but he was prevented from putting his signature in his signature in the attendance register and from taking classes. 32. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed. The Rule is made absolute. The District Inspector of School (Secondary Education) Midnapore shall ensure that the appellant is not prevented from attending the school and putting his signature in the attendance register. The headmaster of the school shall allow the appellant to sign the attendance register and discharge his duties as a teacher of the school. In the event any obstruction is made by anybody, the appellant and the headmaster will be at liberty to take police help so as to enable the appellant to attend the school and to discharge his duty as a teacher of t he school. If any police help is required either by the appellant or by the headmaster, the Officer in Charge, Kolaghat. Thermal Plant Project under Panskura Police Station shall give necessary police help. The appellant will be entitled to his salary for the entire period from December, 1980. He will not, however, e entitled to any salary for eighty days for his absence in connection with his work as Prodhan of the Grama Panchayat or otherwise during April, 1980 to December, 1980. 33. The Registrar, Appellant Side, is directed to pay to the appellant the sum of Rs. 39,868/- which is lying deposited with him towards the arrears salary of the appellant within two weeks from date. 34. Let plain copies of the operative part of the judgment countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be give to the learned Advocates of the parties on their undertaking to apply for certified copies of this judgment. M. M. Dutt, J. :- I agree. Appeal allowed.