Judgment : When a disciplinary proceeding against a delinquent assistant teacher of Bahirkhand Girish Institution, Hooghly, entered in the second stage of such disciplinary proceeding after the first stage of this disciplinary proceeding was approved by the Section 24 Committee of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, the said delinquent teacher has filed this writ petition not only by challenging the first stage of the disciplinary proceeding including the legality and/or validity of the grant of approval thereto by the Section 24 Committee but also by challenging the second show cause notice, primarily on the ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also on the ground of biasness on the part of school authority by not appointing an impartial and non-controversial enquiry officer for holding an enquiry into the charges labeled against the said delinquent teacher. A charge sheet was issued by the school authority on 18th May, 2007 whereby the petitioner was called upon to reply to the charges contained in the said charge sheet within 15 days from the date of receipt of said charge sheet. The petitioner did not submit any reply to the said charge sheet. When a hearing notice was given to the petitioner, he complained about non-supply of the documents which were referred to in Annexure-III of the said charge sheet. It was contended by him that he was unable to participate in the said enquiry proceeding effectively unless the copies of those documents were supplied to him before holding such enquiry. Under such circumstances, another charge sheet containing identical charges along with the statement of imputation and the list of documents together with the copies of the documents mentioned therein were supplied to the petitioner along with the forwarding letter of the school authority dated 26th June, 2007. Though, the petitioner wanted to impress upon this Court that the disciplinary proceeding cannot proceed on the second charge sheet dated 26th June, 2007 without abandoning the first charge sheet dated 18th May, 2007, but this Court does not find any substance in such contention of the petitioner as the charge sheet which was supplied to the petitioner along with the letter of the school authority on 26th June, 2007 was really a verbatim copy of the earlier charge sheet which was supplied to him on 18th May, 2007. The charge sheet which is described as the second charge sheet by the petitioner was, in fact, not the second charge sheet but the same was a copy of the charge sheet dated 18th May, 2007 which was supplied to him earlier. The subsequent charge sheet dated 26th June, 2007 was forwarded to the petitioner as the petitioner complained about non-supply of the documents which were mentioned in Annexure-III of the charge sheet dated 18th May, 2007. In fact, the charge sheet dated 26th June, 2007 is a complete one and the same was served upon the petitioner only to avoid future controversy regarding violation of the Principles of Natural Justice due to non-supply of the documents mentioned in Annexure-III to the charge sheet dated 18th May, 2007. As such, it is not a case where the school authority intended to hold an enquiry on the basis of the second charge sheet without abandoning the first charge sheet as claimed by the petitioner. On this score, this Court, thus, does not find any illegality in the said disciplinary proceeding which was initiated by the school authority on the basis of the charge sheet dated 26th June, 2007. Though, this Court was addressed on various points with regard to the legality and/or validity of the said disciplinary proceeding by the learned Counsel of both the parties and several citations were also referred to by the Counsel, appearing for the respective parties in support of their respective contention but this Court does not find any reason to discuss all such points raised before this Court as this Court feels that this writ petition can be disposed of on a solitary ground of perversity in the decisions taken by various authorities without application of mind at different points of time and also for violation the Rules of Natural Justice in holding such disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. Let me now elaborate the reasons which prompted me to come to such a conclusion in the facts of the instant case. On consideration of the materials on records, this Court finds that the petitioner did not effectively take part at any stage of the disciplinary proceeding. Even the reply to the charge sheet, dealing with the charges mentioned therein, was also not submitted by the petitioner to the school authority. The petitioner also did not participate in the enquiry proceeding before the enquiry officer. Even the reply to the charge sheet, dealing with the charges mentioned therein, was also not submitted by the petitioner to the school authority. The petitioner also did not participate in the enquiry proceeding before the enquiry officer. Under such circumstances, an ex parte enquiry was held by the enquiry officer. Though, the complainant, namely the Headmaster complained that he was slapped on his chick by the delinquent teacher in the presence of the other teaching and non-teaching staff but neither the complainant, namely the Headmaster nor those witnesses in whose presence such incident allegedly occurred, were examined before the enquiry officer. Even the documents, on which reliance was placed by the school authority to prove the said incident, were not proved by evidence. Even though the complainant did not come forward to prove those charges against the delinquent teacher by giving evidence and further even though no step was taken either by him or by his witnesses to prove those documents disclosed in the charge sheet but still then the enquiry officer held that the charges labeled against the delinquent teacher were proved. The school authority also mechanically accepted such conclusion of the inquiry officer and came to the conclusion that the charges labeled against the said delinquent teacher were proved without considering the effect of avoiding the box by the complainant himself. Similarly, the Section 24 Committee, without disclosing any reason in support of its conclusion and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the delinquent teacher, granted approval to the school’s proposal for entering into the second stage of the disciplinary proceeding against the said delinquent teacher. Let me now consider as to how far such conclusion arrived by different authorities at different stages of such disciplinary proceeding can be supported from the legal point of view. In an identical situation the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha; reported in (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 772, deprecated such an enquiry report as the enquiry officer held that the charges labeled against a delinquent employee was proved, even though no witness was examined to prove the charges labeled against the delinquent employee. It was held therein that when no witness was examined in support of charges labeled against a delinquent employee, the entire proceedings were vitiated for violation of Rules of Natural Justice. It was held therein that when no witness was examined in support of charges labeled against a delinquent employee, the entire proceedings were vitiated for violation of Rules of Natural Justice. It was further held therein that even if in an ex parte enquiry, it is incumbent on the enquiry officer to record the statement of the witnesses and thereafter to assess as to whether the charges were proved against the delinquent employee or not. It is no doubt true that such an enquiry can be held either by the disciplinary authority itself or through its appointed enquiry officer but in either case it is obligatory on the part of the enquiry authority to record the evidence of the complainant and the witnesses, before coming to the conclusion that the delinquent employee is guilty of the offences charged against him. In the instant case, this Court finds that even the complainant, namely the Headmaster who was allegedly slapped by the delinquent teacher has not given any evidence to prove his said complain though he was very much present before the enquiry officer in course of such enquiry. If the complainant does not prove the complaint then what will be the consequences of such complaint? In my view, if the complain is neither proved by the complainant nor by the witnesses by giving evidence in corroboration of the evidence of the complainant, the proceeding must fail. Thus, this Court concludes that the enquiry proceeding was held in a most perfunctory and casual manner. The enquiry officer, in my view, is incompetent to hold an enquiry relating to a disciplinary proceeding as he is not posted with the basic rules and procedures for conduct of such an enquiry in connection with the disciplinary proceeding. Under such circumstances, this Court holds that neither the conclusion which was so arrived at by the disciplinary authority on the basis of such an enquiry report nor the conclusion which was arrived at by the Section 24 Committee while grating approval at the first state of such disciplinary proceeding, can be retained on record. Accordingly, the enquiry report as well as the resolution of the Managing Committee accepting such report, the approval granted by the Section 24 Committee at the first stage of such disciplinary proceeding, stand quashed. Consequently, the second show cause notice which was served upon the petitioner by the school authority also stands quashed. Accordingly, the enquiry report as well as the resolution of the Managing Committee accepting such report, the approval granted by the Section 24 Committee at the first stage of such disciplinary proceeding, stand quashed. Consequently, the second show cause notice which was served upon the petitioner by the school authority also stands quashed. The school authority is, thus, directed to appoint an impartial competent enquiry officer for holding an enquiry against the delinquent teacher on the charges labeled against him as mentioned in the charge sheet dated 26th June, 2007 within two weeks from date so that the enquiry can be completed after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within two months from the date of appointing an enquiry officer in the manner, as aforesaid. Since all the documents on which the school authority wants to rely upon in connection with the said disciplinary, have already been supplied to the petitioner and/or disclosed in its affidavit filed in connection with this writ petition, this school authority need not supply further copies of those documents to the petitioner. However, if the school authority wants to rely upon any other document/documents, the school authority is required to put the delinquent teacher on notice about its intention to rely upon those documents and if the petitioner wants inspection of those documents, the school authority should offer inspection of those documents to the petitioner within a week from the date when such inspection will be sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner is, thus, directed to submit his reply to the charge sheet to the school authority within two weeks from date; in default he will not be permitted to use any reply to the charge sheet and the enquiry, in such circumstances, may be proceeded ex parte against him. Needless to mention here that even after submission of the reply, if the petitioner remains absent on the date of holding enquiry before the enquiry officer, the enquiry may be proceeded with ex parte. The school authority is, thus, directed to complete the said disciplinary proceeding by following the provision contained in Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules as early as possible but preferably within three months from the date of submission of the enquiry report before the school authority. The school authority is, thus, directed to complete the said disciplinary proceeding by following the provision contained in Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules as early as possible but preferably within three months from the date of submission of the enquiry report before the school authority. The Board is also directed to complete its exercise, whenever such exercise will be needed, as promptly as possible so that any unnecessary delay in completing the entire proceeding can be avoided. Before conclusion this Court wants to deal with the other part of the complaint of the petitioner regarding non-supply of the enquiry report. Though the petitioner claimed that the enquiry report was not given to him along with the forwarding letter dated 17th February, 2010 written by the Secretary of the said school but this Court disbelieves such contention of the petitioner as it appears from the registered envelope which was sent to the petitioner for service upon him at his residential address contained complete copy of the enquiry report. The said service could not be effected upon the petitioner by the postal authority and as such the same was returned back to the school authority. The said sealed postal envelope was produced by the school authority before this Court in course of hearing of this writ petition and after opening the same in Court, it was found that the said envelope contains complete copy of the enquiry report. Had it been the intention of the school authority not to serve the complete copy of the enquiry report upon the petitioner; then this school authority would not have inserted the complete copy of the enquiry report in the sealed envelope which was forwarded to him by post at his residential address. Thus, this Court cannot believe the petitioner’s contention that the letter dated 17th February, 2010 written by the Secretary of the said school which was served upon the petitioner at the school address did not contain complete copy of the report of the enquiry officer. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of with the above observations. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible. Later: The postal envelope, which was submitted before this Court by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate, appearing for the school authority, in course of hearing of this writ petition, be kept with the record.