Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 45 (CAL)

Amit Kumar Panja v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010-01-15

J.K.BISWAS

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioner in this Article 226 petition dated May 8, 2006 is questioning the decision dated March 23, 2006, Annexure P13 at p.68, and show cause notice also dated March 23, 2006, Annexure P13 at p.69, both issued by the Secretary of Goaberia High School in Danesh Sk. Lane of the District Howrah. 2. BY the decision dated March 23, 2006 the Secretary informed the petitioner that the commuted leave for which he had submitted the requisite application was not sanctioned by the Managing Committee of the institute, and by the notice dated March 23, 2006 the Secretary called upon the petitioner to show cause why proceedings should not be initiated against him on the basis of the allegations mentioned in the notice. While serving in Goaberia High School as an Assistant Teacher of English the petitioner took an examination conducted by the School Service Commission for recruitment of Assistant Teachers of English for Secondary Schools in the State. He was successful and his name was put by the Commission on the select candidate list. He decided to leave Goaberia High School. By a letter dated February 27, 2006, Annexure P9 at p.58 the Commission recommended him to Benupal Chak High School in Benupal Chak of the District Howrah for the post of Assistant Teacher English. Goaberia refused to issue the last pay certificate and the service book. 3. BY a letter dated March 16, 2006, Annexure P9 at p.57, Benupal Chak offered him appointment. Since for non-cooperation of Goaberia he was unable to join Benupal Chak, he moved W.P. No. 5772 (W) of 2006 under Article 226. BY an order dated March 22,2006 Goaberia was directed to issue the last pay certificate and the service book. 4. IN compliance with the order dated March, 22, 2006 Goaberia issued the last pay certificate and an incomplete service book. Under the circumstances, the petitioner joined Benupal Chak on March 27, 2006. Thereafter on March 29, 2006 he received the impugned decision and show cause notice. By a representation dated April 26, 2006, Annexure P14 at p.71, he questioned the jurisdiction and power of Goaberia to take the impugned decision and issue the show cause notice, and called upon Goaberia to rescind the decision and the show cause notice. Since Goaberia refused to rescind the decision and the show cause notice, he took out this petition. By a representation dated April 26, 2006, Annexure P14 at p.71, he questioned the jurisdiction and power of Goaberia to take the impugned decision and issue the show cause notice, and called upon Goaberia to rescind the decision and the show cause notice. Since Goaberia refused to rescind the decision and the show cause notice, he took out this petition. By an order dated May 15, 2006 the petition was admitted and an interim order was passed restraining Goaberia from proceeding on the basis of the impugned decision and show cause notice. It was noted in the order that the employer-employee relationship between Goaberia and the petitioner had ceased on March 25, 2006 when Goaberial released the petitioner from its service. The petition has now come up for final hearing. None appears, for the respondents. Mr. Basu, Counsel for the petitioner, submits that Goaberia had no jurisdiction to take the impugned decision and issue the impugned show cause notice. 5. THE uncontroverted facts are these. THE relationship of employer and employee between Goaberia and the petitioner ceased on March 25, 2006 when the petitioner was released by Goaberia. THE petitioner joined Benupal Chak on March 27, 2006. THE impugned decision and notice were served on him on March 29, 2006. 6. ON these facts, I am of the view that Goaberia had no jurisdiction to take the decision rejecting the petitioner's application for commuted leave that he had enjoyed when he was in Goaberia's employment and for which he was granted full pay, and to issue the notice calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated against him on the basis of the allegations mentioned in the notice. After cessation of the employer-employee relationship Goaberia was not competent to take the decision or to issue the notice. For these reasons, I allow this petition and quash the impugned decision dated March 23, 2006 and notice to show cause also dated March 23, 2006. If any consequential steps are to be taken, then the District Inspector of Schools concerned shall take them. No costs. Certified xerox according to law.