JUDGMENT Malay Kumar Basu, J.: These three revisional applications under Article 227 of the Constitution involving common questions of law and fact were heard together and now are being disposed of by this single judgment. 2. All these three applications have been filed by the Administrator, Keshrambha Vidyasagar Vidya Bhawan of Midnapur district (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner). The relevant facts leading to the filing of these applications may be summarised as follows. The said Vidya Bhawan was a Junior High School w.e.f. 1.1.1968 and subsequently it was upgraded as X-class High School for three years w.e.f. 1.1.1984 to 1987. Due to disputes amongst the members of the Managing Committee with regard to the management of the school, the Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal appointed in Administrator. The present petitioner was appointed as an Administrator of the school by an order dt. 16.3.1999. The petitioner's case is that the O.P. Sri Motilal Das Mahapatra was appointed as Headmaster of the school on and from 1st January, 1968 and continued to function in this capacity till 2nd September, 1985. On 5th September, 1985 the school was proposed to be shifted from Keshrambha to Kakrajit by the said Headmaster and the other two O.Ps. namely, Smt. Sikha Mohanty and Sri Santosh Kr. Maity in connivance with the then Administrator of the school who was also the acting Sub-Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Danton circle at that time. But this illegal attempt at shifting the venue of the school by the O.Ps. was finally disapproved by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and the said O.Ps., that is, the Headmaster and the other two teachers named above moved against that order before this High Court in its writ jurisdiction and a Single Bench of this Court by an order dated 3rd December, 1985 directed the Board to look into the matter and to decide the issue of alleged shifting of the school to the proposed site. Accordingly on 10th January, 1986 the Secretary of the Board heard the matter in presence of all the parties and held that the proposed shifting of a portion of the school from Keshrambha to Kakrajit without obtaining prior permission of the authority by the O.Ps. was illegal and in pursuance of the direction of a Single Bench of this High Court dt. 3.12.1985 directed the O.Ps. was illegal and in pursuance of the direction of a Single Bench of this High Court dt. 3.12.1985 directed the O.Ps. and others concerned to report immediately for joining the school at its original site at Keshrambha. The then Administrator of the school in view of such order of the Board requested those teachers by his letters dated 20.1.86, 22.1.86, 5.2.86 and 25.2.1987 to hand over the keys of the almirah of the school. But the said three teachers including the Headmaster did not comply with the order of the Board or the Administrator and neither they joined the school nor handed-over to the authority the keys of the almirahs. The Administrator after waiting for a long time issued a show-cause notice dated 28th October, 1987 to the said three teachers (O.P. No.2 of each of the revision petitions) directing them to explain their unauthorised absence within ten days from that date. But they did not comply with this order also and did not make any attempt to join the school on the false plea that they had been prevented by the local antisocial elements from entering into the school. Thereafter they moved three writ petitions before this High Court and a Single Bench of this Court passed an order dated 25th August, 1995 directing the President of the Board of Secondary Education to consider the representations of the said three writ petitioners after giving them an opportunity of being heard and to pass a reasoned order. In terms of this direction the President of the Board gave a personal hearing to the parties on 17th November, 1995 and passed a reasoned order thereby disposing of the representations of the three teachers and rejecting their prayers for resumption of duties in the school on the ground that they did not move the Board or Appeal Committee during such a long period of their absence. But against that order of the President of the Board dt. 18th November, 1995 the three teachers moved the High Court again in its writ jurisdiction. In the meantime the District Inspector of Schools, Midnapur by his Memo No. 1134-S dt. 28th March, 1996 accorded permission for filing up the vacant posts of teachers of this school after observing the rules and regulations regarding 50 point roster. As a result, the vacancy of Santosh Kr. In the meantime the District Inspector of Schools, Midnapur by his Memo No. 1134-S dt. 28th March, 1996 accorded permission for filing up the vacant posts of teachers of this school after observing the rules and regulations regarding 50 point roster. As a result, the vacancy of Santosh Kr. Maity was treated as second vacancy (unreserved) and the vacancy of Sikha Mohanty stood against the third vacancy (Unreserved) and the vacancy of Motilal Das was treated as fourth vacancy being reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. Two of the three vacancies were actually filled up by means of appointments being given to different candidates after following the rules. The vacancy in the post of Headmaster however has not yet been filled up due to non-availability of eligible Scheduled Tribe candidate. 3. In the aforementioned writ petitions this Court has passed an interim order to the effect that all steps taken including the appointments given during the pendency of the writ petitions would be subject to the result of the writ petitions. On 12th March, 1999 those writ petitions were disposed of by a Single Bench of this Court directing that the writ petitioners would be entitled to join the school with back wages and consequential benefits in accordance with law. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated 12th March, 1999 the Administrator of the school preferred appeals before a Division Bench of this Court which after hearing all the parties allowed the same and set aside the order of the trial Court whereunder the writ petitioners had been directed to be reinstated with full back wages and it further directed the appropriate committee of the Board to consider the matter afresh and pass a fresh speaking order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of that order. The Division Bench, inter alia, also directed that in the event it was held by the said committee of the Board that the petitioners had been prevented from joining their duties unlawfully and they were not to be blamed for that, then the authorities should consider their cases for grant of extension of approval in respect of their services as had been done in cases of others. 5. 5. Pursuant to this order of the Division Bench of this Court the three teachers preferred appeals before the Appeal Committee of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education which heard both the parties on 22nd March, 2000 and passed its judgment on 12th April, 2000 and thereby it rejected the proposal for shifting of the school from its original site and held that the school should run from its original site at Keshrambhapur and directed the three appellants/teachers as well as others concerned to resume their duties there on the ground that they were to be regarded as teachers of the school whose services could not be taken as terminated without proceeding against them under Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules. The Committee has further held that since from 1985 till 15.11.1999 they did not perform any work having not joined the institution, they would not be entitled to get any salary for this period, but however, since they forcibly joined the institution on 16.11.1999, though without the knowledge or permission of the Administrator of the school, and since they had been performing their duties since then, the authority should regularise their joining and they should get their remuneration with effect from that date of joining. The further direction of the Appeal Committee is that the pay of these three teachers shall be fixed taking into account the increments which might have fallen due to them during the period of their absence and the Committee has also specifically instructed that the post of teacher now lying in the Social Science group be given to the appellant, Santosh Kumar Maity who has the requisite qualification for the same and the vacancy that would arise with effect from 3rd May, 2000 consequent upon the retirement of another teacher, Radhagobinda Jana, may be considered for being accommodated to another appellant and that the appellant, Matilal Das Mahapatra shall continue as the Headmaster of the school. 6. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the Appeal Committee, the petitioner has preferred the present revisional application challenging the same as illegal, improper and invalid. According to him the Appeal Committee gave its verdict wrongly without going into the merits of the case and taking a biased attitude towards the appellants and decided the issue in their favour ignoring and overlooking the submissions of the petitioner and the documents filed by them. According to him the Appeal Committee gave its verdict wrongly without going into the merits of the case and taking a biased attitude towards the appellants and decided the issue in their favour ignoring and overlooking the submissions of the petitioner and the documents filed by them. The further contention of the petitioner is that the findings of the Appeal Committee is palpably perverse, inasmuch as, it has first held that the appellants did not perform since 1985 and again in the same breath it has observed that they have been performing their duties since 16th November, 1999. According to the petitioner there has been absolutely no reason for the Appeal Committee's coming to such a finding, because on that date they could not be said to have joined as the matter was subjudice, since it was pending before the Appeal Committee for its decision and the Appeal Committee is to be treated as a Tribunal. Mr. Ghosh, ld. Advocate for the petitioner has drawn my notice to the prayer portion of the applications of the O.P.-teachers filed before the Appeal Committee where in their prayer is for "resumption of duties". The contention of Mr. Ghosh is that their very prayers clearly show that they were not attending to their duties in the school at the relevant time and that is why they were seeking an order of the Tribunal to enable them to resume their duties in the school. According to Mr. Ghosh had it been the case that the O.Ps. had joined the school on the said date, namely, 16th November, 1999, then in their petitions before the Appeal Committee they would not have made such a prayer. 7. In this Revisional application under Article 227 the main question for determination before me is whether in the impugned order the Appeal Committee which is in the footing of a Tribunal has overstepped the limits of its jurisdiction or whether the findings have been based on no material or otherwise perverse (vide the principle enunciated by a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Nibaran Ch. Bag vs. Mahendranath Ghughu, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1895). Bag vs. Mahendranath Ghughu, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1895). The Appeal Committee has found that though from the materials it is clearly and convincingly proved that the long absence of the appellants from the school since 3rd September, 1985 was without any prior permission or even intimation and hence unauthorised, yet the administrative authority of the school did not take any disciplinary action against them. However, the further finding of the Appeal Committee is that it is proved that on 16.11.1999 the appellants went to the institution and joined their office. According to the verdict of the Appeal Committee, since the school authority did not draw up any disciplinary proceeding against the three appellant-teachers for their unauthorised absence, it cannot take any penal measure against them like termination from service without following the procedure as envisaged under Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules. The judgment of the Appeal Committee also includes the finding that since the appellants forcibly joined the school on 16.11.1999 and were found to have been performing their duties since then, they were entitled to get remuneration with effect from that date. In the ordering portion of the judgment the committee has also given necessary direction upon the Administrator of the school in this behalf. 8. While the first part of its findings is quite understandable that the appellant-teachers could not join the school under circumstances beyond their control (the Appeal Committee has relied upon a good number of letters written by the appellants to the school authorities as well as the police informing them that they were being obstructed by unruly elements of the locality in the matter of entering into the school and joining their duties), the second part of its findings remains a mystery. The Appeal Committee has observed "It is a fact that on 16.11.1999 the appellants went to the institution and joined the institution". The question is wherefrom it came to such a finding. In the next few lines perhaps the reasons appear to have been given. It is to the effect that from the copy of a letter dt. The Appeal Committee has observed "It is a fact that on 16.11.1999 the appellants went to the institution and joined the institution". The question is wherefrom it came to such a finding. In the next few lines perhaps the reasons appear to have been given. It is to the effect that from the copy of a letter dt. 18.11.1999 addressed to the DSE, W.B. and the D.I. of School it transpired that the appellants took various attempts at attending the school, but due to restraint organised by the Management of the School they could not attend the school and that a copy of similar letter had been filed by the teaching and non-teaching staff supporting the allegations of the appellants about their being prevented from attending the school. After this the Appeal Committee suddenly jumps to the line, "This is after the appellants joined the school". It is not understood how the Committee can draw such a conclusion when under the above-mentioned letter the contrary situation was adverted to. If they could not be successful in joining the institution due to such resistance given as alleged in the said letters, then how they could ultimately be found to have joined on 16.11.1999 as alleged? Another reason which appears to have weighed with the Committee in this regard is that though the High Court directed police help to be provided to the appellants to enable them to attend the school, the school authority on receipt of such information decided to close the institution for seven days disobeying the order of the High Court. One wonders how these facts could lead the Appeal Committee to come to the conclusion that the appellants joined the institution on 16.11.1999 when the facts rather show that they could not physically make their entry into the school, far less joint their duties. 9. That apart, and more significantly, the question that crops up is how these teachers could contemplate joining the institution when the issue was subjudice, being under consideration of the Appeal Committee for a decision. The matter was referred to the Appeal Committee by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 25.6.1999, whereas the Appeal Committee disposed of the matter on 22.3.2000. How during the mean period on 16.11.1999 as alleged their could be an occasion for the said teachers to join? The matter was referred to the Appeal Committee by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 25.6.1999, whereas the Appeal Committee disposed of the matter on 22.3.2000. How during the mean period on 16.11.1999 as alleged their could be an occasion for the said teachers to join? Even if for the sake of argument it is assumed for a moment that they joined the institution on that date as alleged, even then that would be and unlawful because of the pendency of the matter before a Tribunal, viz., the Appeal Committee. 10. So the finding of the Appeal Committee that they joined the institution on 16th November, 1999 is unfounded and unacceptable. If this part of the finding goes, the question of their getting salary or allowances for the period subsequent to that date also cannot arise. 11. Since no disciplinary proceeding as per the rules were drawn up against the absentee teachers for their allegedly unauthorised absence and no disciplinary action taken against them by the authority as yet, their services cannot be treated as terminated. The finding of the Appeal Committee in this regard is correct. Mr. Ghosh has contended that it is not correct to say that no disciplinary action was at all initiated against the teachers at fault. He refers to the copies of the letter dt. 28.10.1987 which is practically a show-cause notice sent by the Administrator of the school to each of these three teachers asking them to state the reasons within ten days from the date of receipt of that letter why the authority would not be moved for taking disciplinary action against them for their unauthorised absence since 3.9.1985 (vide p.26 of the application). As against this, the argument of the ld. Advocate for the O.Ps. is that in the first place, his clients did not receive any such letter and secondly, and more importantly, issuing of such a show-cause notice was not in accordance with the requirements of the provisions of Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules which provides a specific procedure for starting departmental proceeding against an erring employee. That apart, the authority did not proceed any further when these alleged show-cause notices were not accorded with a response by the three teachers. To this Mr. That apart, the authority did not proceed any further when these alleged show-cause notices were not accorded with a response by the three teachers. To this Mr. Ghosh's reply is that as the teachers instead of showing any cause filed petitions before this High Court and since the matter continued to remain subjudice, the school authority could not proceed against them any further. 12. Be that as it may, since the O.Ps. absented themselves for a long, continuous period without performing any work they cannot be found entitled to receive any remuneration in respect of that period of absence without an enquiry being held under the relevant provisions of the Management Rules to ascertain the cause of such absence and after holding such departmental enquiry the administrative authority of the school will be at liberty to deal with the matter in accordance with the disciplinary Rules of the Board. 13. In view of the above discussion I am inclined to accept the findings of the Appeal Committee in part. Since no disciplinary proceeding has yet been drawn up against the O.P.s. for their allegedly unauthorised absence and since their services have not yet been terminated by the school authority after observing the procedure as prescribed under the Management Rules, 1969, the findings of the Appeal Committee that they are to be regarded as teachers of the school and shall be allowed to work in their respective posts but they shall not be entitled to any payor allowances for their period of their absence are hereby affirmed. But the other part of its findings, viz., that they are found to have forcibly joined the institution without the knowledge or permission of the Administrator of the school on and from 16.11.1999 and have been working since then and hence they are entitled to get pay and allowances with effect from that date being not founded on reliable materials be hereby set aside. Thus the O.Ps. shall be allowed to join in their respective posts in the school forthwith and they shall be given their pay and allowances with effect from the date on which they join. Fixation of such pay and allowances will be in the manner as indicated by the Appeal Committee in its impugned order. 14. Thus the O.Ps. shall be allowed to join in their respective posts in the school forthwith and they shall be given their pay and allowances with effect from the date on which they join. Fixation of such pay and allowances will be in the manner as indicated by the Appeal Committee in its impugned order. 14. The impugned order be modified to the extent that the administrative authority of the school will be at liberty to departmentally proceed against the O.Ps. for their allegedly unauthorised absence strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Management Rules, 1969 and after holding such enquiry it may pass such orders as may be deemed appropriate under the law. The Revisional application is accordingly disposed of. 15. After the above order is passed, ld. Advocate Mr. Ghosh prays for an order for staying the operation of this judgment for a period of four weeks on the ground that his client will move against this order. The prayer is considered and rejected. Impugned order modified.