Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 532 (CAL)

SUDHIR KUMAR MANDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2006-08-23

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2006
( 1 ) FOR his detention in custody in connection with a pending criminal case the petitioner was suspended by the school authority with effect from february 28, 2006, At that date he was working as an assistant teacher in the school (Habra Model High School, North 24-Parganas ). ( 2 ) ACCORDING to provisions in Rule 28 (9) (viia) of the Management of Recognized Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969 the suspension order was to be approved by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education that recognized the school. The approval was given by order dated April 21, 2006. ( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY within ninety days from the date of suspension the school authority did not initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. As a result, by operation of law, also in that Rule 28 (9) (viia), the suspension order was to stand automatically withdrawn on expiration of the period of ninety days from the date of suspension. ( 4 ) THE above-noted legal position has been noticed by Counsel for the school, who finds little to say in justification of continuation of the suspension of the petitioner. He says that his client may be permitted to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings. For that no leave is necessary from Court. That is not either the issue in the case. ( 5 ) THE question for decision is whether the suspension order is still in force. I fully agree with Counsel for the petitioner that the suspension order dated February, 28, 2006 has died a natural death on expiration of the period of ninety days from that date. As a result, the petitioner has become entitled to join duties and get benefits. ( 6 ) FOR these reasons, I dispose of the writ petition ordering that the school authority shall permit the petitioner to join duties at once. From the date the petitioner joins duties he shall get full salary and allowances according to law. ( 7 ) THERE is no scope to direct the respondents to pay full salary for the period following the period of ninety days from the date of suspension, since admittedly the petitioner did not work during that period. Hence for that period the petitioner will be paid subsistence allowance in terms of the first proviso to clause (viia) of Rule 28 (9 ). Hence for that period the petitioner will be paid subsistence allowance in terms of the first proviso to clause (viia) of Rule 28 (9 ). ( 8 ) I make it clear that nothing in this order shall prevent the school authority from initating appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. There shall be no order for costs in the case.