Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 436 (CAL)

Susanta Kumar Pattanayak v. State of West Bengal

2014-05-13

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI

body2014
Judgment Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. By this writ petition the petitioner has inter alia prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to show-cause why the petitioner would not be allowed to join the School as the Headmaster of Damuria Jagadish Chandra Institution (the School, for short) and to release his salary from August, 2007 till date and for other reliefs. The petitioner was appointed as the Headmaster of the said School on December 23, 1997. During his tenure as the Headmaster he had faced various problems, both from his colleagues and staff of the School as well as from the outsiders. The petitioner alleges that there were certain incidents inside the school relating to unlawful demand of money by outsiders with its various ramifications. For the present purpose it is not necessary to enter into these aspects in details. From August 22, 2007 he was on sick leave for one and half months. On October 3, 2007 he prayed for leave for six more weeks as directed by the medical practitioner. But the letter came back to him. On November 8, 2007 he made a further prayer for leave for 15 days with effect from November 12, 2007. He last prayed for leave due to his personal reasons up to December 4, 2007. The petitioner alleges that on December 5, 2007 when he went to join the School the Teacher-in-Charge did not allow him to join and he was not allowed to sign the attendance register. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the direction of the concerned Assistant Inspector of Schools when he went to join on December 7, 2007 he was again not allowed to join the School and the registration forms for the students of Class IX were not also accepted by the Teacher-in-Charge. His salary has not been released for which he made an application on December 12, 2007. The petitioner has laid the blame at the doors of some of his colleagues and the school authorities as he had alienated some persons by trying to be regular and punctual in the administration of the School and that explains his sufferings. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition with the prayers as mentioned before. It appears that the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Paschim Midnapore, i.e. the respondent no. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition with the prayers as mentioned before. It appears that the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Paschim Midnapore, i.e. the respondent no. 2 herein, filed a report in court pursuant to an order passed by a learned single judge of this court on November 23, 2010 on the issue of withholding of salary of the petitioner since September, 2009. According to the respondent no. 2 he called the Teacher-in-Charge as well as the Administrator of the school and it was given out to him that the petitioner was absenting himself from school duty without any intimation. The Headmaster of the school was sought to be contacted by the respondent no. 2 over phone but he could not. He has given the number of dates the petitioner attended the School in the year 2010 and as per the report of the Administrator the petitioner did not approach him for release of his salary. The salary of the petitioner for the months of April and May, 2010 and the arrear salary were lying with the school salary account. The school authorities did not receive any leave application from the petitioner and many of the records were lying with him which had not been made available to them. It appears from the said report that the school had intimated the authorities that it was inconvenient for them to run the school smoothly due to the long absence and sustained non-cooperation of the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 by the report had again requested the petitioner to submit a formal leave application to deal with his absence and payment of salary. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and have perused the petition. The writ petition contains various allegations which require scrutiny by the concerned authority and the same is beyond the scope of the writ jurisdiction of this court. In such view of it I dispose of the writ petition by directing the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Paschim Medinipur, to look into the matter and to make an enquiry. He has to find why the petitioner was absent from his duty for such a long time and whether his absence was justified. In such view of it I dispose of the writ petition by directing the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Paschim Medinipur, to look into the matter and to make an enquiry. He has to find why the petitioner was absent from his duty for such a long time and whether his absence was justified. Such enquiry is to be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of the communication of the order after giving all the parties an opportunity of being heard and by passing a reasoned order. The said authority shall take a decision with regard to the various allegations made by the petitioner and shall communicate the same to the petitioner within a week thereafter. He shall also take a decision with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner to the unpaid salary and if it is found that the petitioner would be entitled to any salary as per the existing rules the same shall also be directed to be released. The authorities are further directed to release the retiral benefits to him within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order in accordance with law. With the disposal of the writ petition, the applications being CAN 9106 of 2009 and CAN 1055 of 2012 are also disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.