Judgment :- (1.) HEARD the learned Advocate for the applicant, managing Committee of the School. (2.) DESPITE several directions on diverse dates directing writ petitioner/ appellant/opposite party to file affidavit-in-opposition, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. The first order was passed on 28th september, 2007 directing to file affidavit-in-opposition. Time to file opposition was extended by the order dated 12th October, 2007. As no opposition had been filed, again direction for opposition was granted on 7th December, 2007 and lastly on 25th January, 2008. As no opposition has been filed till date, we have no basis of the application as has been filed. Furthermore, from the documentary evidence as annexed in this application relating to the departmental proceeding it appears that this application could be disposed of on the basis of the documents as filed. Initially, a writ application was moved being W. P. No. 1845 of 1996 assailing the departmental proceeding as initiated by the Managing committee of the School under Rule 28 (8) of the Management of recognized Non-Govt. Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969 read with Management Rules, 1969 against the writ petitioner-Head mistress. On 15th March, 2005, a consent order was passed in the said writ application by the Learned Trial Judge directing completion, of the departmental proceeding and payment of subsistence allowance as usual in accordance with law. This judgment and order dated 15th March, 2005 was sought to be modified by an application by the petitioner which stood rejected by the order dated 21st April, 2005 by the Learned Trial Judge. Against that order an appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner being the present appeal wherein on 21st July, 2005, the Division Bench presided by The Honble The Chief Justice v. S. Sirpurkar (as His Lordship then was) and The Honble Justice Jyotosh Banerjee (as His Lordship then was) despite the fact that the judgment under appeal was a consent judgment entertained the matter and allowed extension of time to complete the departmental proceeding without touching the major directions as passed by the Learned Trial Judge to complete such departmental proceeding by the judgment under appeal. Time limit since expired the Managing Committee of the School approached the Division bench presided by The Honble The Chief Justice v. S. Sirpurkar (as His lordship then was) and The Honble Justice Asit Kumar Bisi (as His lordship then was) seeking extension of such time which was allowed by the Order dated 5th October, 2005 directing to complete the inquiry under one new Inquiry Officer within 31st December, 2005. As the inquiry Officer could not complete the preliminary inquiry, the Division bench was approached further seeking extension of time by the managing Committee of the School when by the order dated 1st March, 2006, the Division Bench extended the time. The present application has been filed praying the following orders. " (a) The enquiry be deemed as held within time stipulated by the honble Division Bench; (b) Alternatively, time for completion of the enquiry be extended appropriately upon modification of the order dated 1. 3. 2006 passed by the Honble Division Bench, if needed; (c) The period of entitlement of the writ petitioner to full salary be clarified; (d) Stay of further proceedings in W. P. No. 1551 of 2006 pending disposal of this application. " (3.) FROM the application it appears that challenging the departmental proceeding as it was not finally disposed of in view of the time limit as fixed by the Division Bench as aforesaid another writ application was moved being W. P. No. 1551 of 2006 by the writ petitioner-Head Mistress, the delinquent who is facing the departmental proceeding. In this writ application, an order had been passed on 24th August, 2007 by the learned Trial Judge directing the writ petitioner to seek clarification from the Division Bench as the Division Bench extended the time and as such, the same became the cause of action of filing the writ application. (4.) HAVING regard to the present application with the aforesaid prayers the concerned rule requires to be dealt with under Rule 28 (8) of the management Rules, 1969, the Managing Committee is entitled to proceed with a departmental proceeding against the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school including the Head Mistress but it requires approval on different stages from the West Bengal Board of Secondary education. The departmental proceeding how to be initiated and completed is controlled by the order issued by the West Bengal Board of secondary Education by Memo No. S/607 dated 21st June, 1982 directing that the inquiry proceeding should be completed by two different stages. The stages are as follows: " (a) First stage : the procedure of the "first stage shall comprise the following ad seriatim: (i) Resolution of the Managing Committee containing the charges against the person to be proceeded against; (ii) Formal charge-sheet to be issued to the person concerned, containing the articles of charges as per resolution of the managing Committee; (iii) Reply to the charge-sheet by the person proceeded against to be submitted to the Managing Committee ordinarily within a fortnight from the date of receipt of the charge-sheet; (iv) Consideration of the reply by the Managing committee and its decision thereon, with the underlying reasons for taking such decision to be stated in detail. The school management shall, thereafter, send to the Board their proposal along with attested copies of all relevant papers coming within the scope of the first Stage above. If the Board considers there are sufficient grounds for taking disciplinary action against the person concerned on the basis of papers submitted by the school and also papers that may be subsequently called for, if necessary, the Board will accord first approval to the schools proposal for initiating disciplinary proceeding against him/her. In all cases, the Board will acknowledge the schools letters on the subject at the earliest opportunity. If no communication from the Board be received within one month of submission of the proposal regarding the punishment to be meted out to the teacher/non-teaching employee, the school concerned will meet the Secretary of the Board along with all relevant papers with a prayer for expeditions disposal of the case. (b) Second stage: the procedure of the second stage, if necessary, shall comprise the following ad seriatim: (i) On receipt of the Boards aforesaid approval, the Managing committee shall issue a show-cause notice, on the basis of their resolution, to the person concerned ordinarily within a fortnight, specifying the nature of the punishment proposed to be awarded to him/her, as provided under Rule 28 (8} or (8a). (ii) On receipt of the persons reply to the show-cause notice, the managing Committee shall consider the reply in its meeting and take a decision thereon in the form of a resolution. (iii) The school management shall thereafter forward all relevant papers as mentioned in (i) and (ii) above, to the Board for consideration ordinarily within one month of the reply to the show-cause notice, as indicated under (b) (ii). The Board will then consider the case in all its aspects, decide it finally and communicate its decision to the school authority for implementation. The decision of Board on the matter in final and binding upon all concerned. " (5.) ON a bare reading of such circular, it appears that completion of the departmental proceeding in terms of Rule 28 (8) of the Management rules as aforesaid requires a time limit as at different stages, approval of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education is required. Hence to complete the departmental proceeding, there is no doubt that the managing Committee has no final hand. The entire matter is dependent upon the coordination with the West Bengal Board of Secondary education as it appears from the said circular. Till the approval of the first stage is accorded by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education accepting the proposal for initiating the departmental proceeding against the delinquent, there is no scope before the Managing committee to proceed with the second stage in terms of the said circular. It appears that the Division Bench earlier was not made aware about time as to be consumed to complete a departmental proceeding in terms of the circular of the Board and as such, a direction was given only to the Managing Committee to complete the Departmental proceeding within two months which subsequently was extended time to time. It appears that the Division Bench earlier was not made aware about time as to be consumed to complete a departmental proceeding in terms of the circular of the Board and as such, a direction was given only to the Managing Committee to complete the Departmental proceeding within two months which subsequently was extended time to time. It appears from the records as filed so far as the inquiry at the first stage is concerned, which is in the hand of the Managing committee that has been completed and Managing Committee has referred all the papers and documents namely, reply to the charge sheet by the delinquent teacher as well as the resolution of the Managing committee dated 5th July, 2006 on that issue to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and the matter is now awaiting for a decision whether it will proceed to the second stage or not following the second stage as mentioned in the said circular letter. As there was no direction to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education earlier, naturally West bengal Board of Secondary Education is sitting tight over the issue and as a resultant effect the purpose of the judgment as delivered by the high Court by not entertaining the writ application seeking quashing of the charge under departmental proceeding practically is being frustrated. (6.) HAVING regard to such state of affairs as the extension of time to complete the departmental proceeding is not within the domain of any, adjudicatory field and it is simply a technical matter, we are of the view that the principle of law so far as the debarring effect when a Court becomes functus officio has no applicability in the instant case. This application simply on issue of extension of time to complete the departmental proceeding following the different stages in terms of the board circular dated 21st June, 1982. Having regard to such situation as there is no question of further adjudication of the matter on merit we are of the view, that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this application as well as to allow the application. Having regard to such situation as there is no question of further adjudication of the matter on merit we are of the view, that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this application as well as to allow the application. Reliance may be placed to the judgment reported in (2006) 2 CLT 412 (Suhendu Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) where one of us sitting singly (Pratap Kumar Ray, J.)has considered the issue by considering different Judgments in that field namely, when the Court after passing the judgment is legally entitled to entertain any application seeking extension of time and/or modification thereof. There is no doubt that once the judgment is delivered the Court becomes functus Officio. (7.) FURTHER there is no doubt that once the judgment is delivered the court who has passed the judgment is entitled to consider only two types of applications, one is the review application and another is the contempt application if there is any violation. But so far as modification and/or extension of time when there is no point to adjudicate the issue further but simply to extend the time on the basis of the adjudication as earlier made, the principle of "functus officio doctrine" is not applicable. We are following the judgment and authority to that effect in adjudicating the present case. (8.) NOW having regard to the fact that there is a lengthy procedure inaugurated by the board in terms of the circular dated 21st June, 1982 wherein the Managing Committee has no hand to complete the departmental proceeding, we are entertaining the application: to modify the earlier order by directing that the departmental proceeding to be completed as expeditiously as possible but within one year from this date in terms of the circular letter of the board dated 21st June, 1982 and the Managing Committee and the Board both are directed to take all steps in the matter as expeditiously as possible to complete such departmental proceeding. The Board is accordingly directed to decide the issue of approval of the first stage of departmental proceeding which is still pending before the Board within a month from the date of communication of this order to the Managing Committee of the School. The Managing Committee of the School upon receipt of the boards approval, if any, is allowed to proceed with the second stage following the said circular letter. The Managing Committee of the School upon receipt of the boards approval, if any, is allowed to proceed with the second stage following the said circular letter. Considering that we are allowing prayers (a)and (b) on deleting the word "alternatively" as mentioned in prayer (b). (9.) SO far as prayer (c) is concerned, we are of the view that prayer (c)is required to be considered on merit. Prayer (c) relates to entitlement of the full salary by the writ petitioner delinquent. It appears that initially when the departmental proceeding started the Head Mistress was suspended. Assailing the suspension order and the initiation of departmental proceeding earlier writ application was moved which became the subject matter of the appeal. It appears that order of suspension was not disturbed by the Learned Trial Judge while delivering the judgment in the writ application on 15th March, 2005 in w. P. 1845 of 1996. It appears that the Learned Trial Judge by the said order directed that the writ petitioner would be deemed under suspension and all subsistence allowance to be paid accordingly. The modification application as filed by the writ petitioner delinquent stood rejected on 21st April, 2005. Against that when the appeal was preferred being APOT 346 of 2005 the Division Bench Coram: V. S. Sirpurkar, C. J. and Joytosh Banerjee (as their Lordship then were) by the judgment and order dated 21st July, 2005 did not interfere with the order of suspension as well as payment of subsistence allowance. But subsequently for the second time of extension of time to complete departmental proceeding on 1st March, 2006 the Division Bench however passed the order for payment of full salary. The said order reads thus: "the Court: A further extension is granted for two months on condition that the School pays the full salary to the concerned teacher. It is also directed that the inquiry be conducted under a changed inquiry officer. This extension is being made finally. Parties shall act on a signed xerox copy of this order on the usual undertaking. It is also directed that the inquiry be conducted under a changed inquiry officer. This extension is being made finally. Parties shall act on a signed xerox copy of this order on the usual undertaking. " (10.) IT appears that in view of the pendency of the matter either division Bench was inclined to grant such order of payments of salary or it might be that the subsistence allowance issue was not pressed before the Division Bench by the Managing Committee as well as the writ petitioner or it may be that for the limited period the Division Bench passed an order of salary. Whatever it may be we cannot consider that portion of order in this application because it requires an adjudication on issue about the entitlement of the delinquent to enjoy the full salary in lieu of subsistence allowance during pendency of the departmental proceeding. In view of such we are not considering the prayer (c) as prayed for in this application as we have no jurisdiction to decide this matter and the point is kept open. The applicant Managing Committee however would be at liberty to file an appropriate application seeking review of the portion of the order whereby Court granted payments of salary, if they consider it fit and proper. (11.) FOR the time being we are keeping the point open and we are not observing anything on that issue as to whether the delinquent would be entitled to get full salary or be entitled to get subsistence allowance. Having regard to the fact and our finding above, this application stands disposed of with the aforesaid order. Application disposed of.