JUDGMENT : R.K. Bag, J. The petitioner has preferred this writ application challenging adverse entries made in her service book, deduction of salary for the period for which she applied for leave and non-deposit of provident fund contribution for certain period of time. 2. The petitioner joined as Assistant Teacher in Mathematics in Jeeva Sheva Mission Kiran Chandra Girls High School (hereinafter referred to as the old school) in the month of December, 1994. She worked in the old school till May 6, 2013. She joined as Headmistress of Santoshpur Vidyamandir for Girls High School on May 7, 2013 on the basis of recommendation by the Regional School Service Commission. It is alleged that in the year 2001 an inquiry was conducted against the respondent no.5 by the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Kolkata, when the respondent no.5 failed to produce the office copy of the treasury challan in respect of contribution of provident fund of the employees of the school for the month of August, 1997. The respondent no.5 forwarded the service book of the petitioner from the old school to the school where the petitioner joined as Headmistress after making adverse entries against the petitioner in the service book on May 2, 2013. The respondent no.5 made adverse entries in the service book to the effect that from July 19, 1997 to September 26, 1997 the petitioner did not put her signature on the attendance register of the school. The respondent no.5 made entries in the service book to the effect that from June 28, 1998 to February 7, 1999 the petitioner did not perform her duties and did not maintain discipline of the school. The respondent no.5 also made adverse entries in the service book to the effect that the petitioner refused to take the classes, check the answer scripts of the students and conduct terminal examination of the school. According to the petitioner, the adverse entries have been made in the service book by the respondent no.5 without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing and the entries have been made in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. According to the petitioner, the adverse entries have been made in the service book by the respondent no.5 without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing and the entries have been made in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent no.5 deducted the salary of the petitioner for 5 days in the month of September, 2011 and for 6 days in the month of November, 2011 on the ground that the petitioner was absent from the school without submitting any application for leave, though the petitioner submitted application for leave subsequently for regularisation of the absence. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.5 deducted the salary of the petitioner in a mala fide way and in violation of the rules by which the petitioner is governed. The petitioner has also alleged that there are some discrepancies with regard to contribution in the account of provident fund of the petitioner by the old school authority and that the respondent no.5 did not make contribution of provident fund in the account of the petitioner for the month of August-1997, March-1999, August-2003 and January-2006. 4. The affidavits have been exchanged between the respondent nos.4 and 5 and the petitioner. The respondent no.4 happens to be the Managing Committee of the old school of the petitioner and respondent no.5 happens to be the Headmistress of the old school of the petitioner. It is pertinent to point out that the Headmistress of the old school of the petitioner was impleaded both as respondent no.5 in the capacity of the Headmistress and as respondent no.5 in her personal capacity. Mr. Milan Chandra Bhattacharya, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.5 cannot be accepted as the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no.4 as the respondent no.5 was not authorised by the respondent no.4 to swear the affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.4. On scrutiny of the affidavit-in-opposition, I find that the respondent no.5 happens to be the Joint Secretary of the Managing Committee of the old school and she has claimed that she is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the present case and as such I do not find any merit in the submission made by Mr. Bhattacharya. On scrutiny of the affidavit-in-opposition, I find that the respondent no.5 happens to be the Joint Secretary of the Managing Committee of the old school and she has claimed that she is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the present case and as such I do not find any merit in the submission made by Mr. Bhattacharya. Accordingly, the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 and respondent no.5 is accepted as the affidavit-in-opposition of the said respondents. 5. Before entering into the merit of the case, I would like to deal with the submissions made by Mr. Partha Sarathi Basu, Learned Counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5 with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India" reported in AIR 1975 SC 460 and the case of "State of Haryana v. Chanan Mal" reported in AIR 1976 SC 1654 , Mr. Basu contends that the petitioner did not redress her grievances before the respondents for demand of justice and as such the present writ petition is not maintainable in law. 6. In "Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd." (supra) the Supreme Court has quoted Halsburys Laws of England, (3rd Edn. Vol.13, Page-106) in paragraph 24, which is as follows: "As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that demand was met by a refusal." 6(a) The proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph 42.3 of "State of Haryana v. Chanan Mal" (supra) is as follows: "42.3. Any petitioner who applies for a writ or order in the nature of a Mandamus should, in compliance with a well known rule of practise, ordinarily, first call upon the authority concerned to discharge its legal obligation and show that it has refused or neglected to carry it out within a reasonable time before applying to a Court for such an order even where the alleged obligation is established." 7. In view of the above proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court it is the duty of the petitioner to ventilate her grievances before the authority concerned and to seek remedy from the concerned authorities. The petitioner can move the writ court only if the respondent authorities do not give relief to the petitioner within reasonable period of time. In the instant case, on June 29, 2013, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent no.5 (annexure P-7 to the writ application) calling upon her to expunge the adverse entries made in the service book in violation of the principles of natural justice and for payment of salary which was illegally deducted in spite of submission of application for leave subsequently for regularisation of absence. It is evident from the reply given by the respondent no.5 to the petitioner on July 13, 2013 (Annexure P-8 to the writ application) that the respondent no.5 pleaded her inability to expunge the adverse entries from the service book on the ground that the said entries were made in accordance with law. It is, thus, established from the materials on record that the petitioner demanded justice from the respondent no.5 by submitting formal application before filing the writ petition and the respondent no.5 pleaded her inability to give relief to the petitioner. The materials on record, thus, clearly nullify the submission made by Mr. Basu that the petitioner did not ventilate her grievances before the respondent authorities by demanding justice before filing the writ application. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the submission that the instant writ petition is not maintainable in law. 8. The materials on record, thus, clearly nullify the submission made by Mr. Basu that the petitioner did not ventilate her grievances before the respondent authorities by demanding justice before filing the writ application. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the submission that the instant writ petition is not maintainable in law. 8. The grievance of the petitioner may be summarised as follows: (i) The respondent no.5 made adverse entries in the service book of the petitioner on May 2, 2013 in a malafide way and in violation of the principles of natural justice (ii) The respondent no.5 illegally deducted the salary of the petitioner for 5 days in the month of September-2011 and 6 days in the month of November-2011, though the petitioner submitted formal application for leave subsequently for regularisation of the absence and the said salary was not refunded (iii) The respondent nos.4 and 5 did not remove the discrepancies in the account of provident fund of the petitioner and those respondents did not contribute the amount of provident fund in the account of the petitioner for the month of August-1997, March-1999, August-2003 and January-2006. Mr. Bhattacharya, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent no.5 has made adverse entries in the service book of the petitioner immediately before the release of the petitioner from the old school for joining as the Headmistress in another school in a mala fide way. The adverse entries are made in connection with the conduct of the petitioner in the year 1997 and 1999 without taking any disciplinary action against the petitioner either by the respondent no.5 as the Headmistress of the old school or by the respondent no.4 as the Managing Committee of the old school during more than 15 years of her tenure as Assistant Teacher of the said old school. Mr. Bhattacharya further submits that the respondent no.5 made the adverse entries in the service book of the petitioner due to her long standing strained relationship with the petitioner while the petitioner was working as the Assistant Teacher of the said old school. He also submits that there was no law under which the respondent no.5 is authorised to make adverse entries in the service book of the petitioner without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. He also submits that there was no law under which the respondent no.5 is authorised to make adverse entries in the service book of the petitioner without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. He has urged this court to consider that the leave rules by which the petitioner is governed do not permit the respondent no.5 to deduct the salary of the petitioner for her absence from the school for a particular period of time, when the petitioner applied for leave subsequently for regularisation of her absence. He has also pointed out that the respondent nos.4 and 5 are duty bound to contribute the amount of provident fund in the account of the provident fund of the petitioner, but those respondents did not contribute the amount in the account of the provident fund of the petitioner for the month of August-1997, March-1999, August-2003 and January-2006. Mr. Bhattacharya has relied on three decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (1997) 4 SCC 7 , (2013) 1 SCC 353 and 2013(3) CHN (SC) 126 in support of his contention. 9. In "State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra" reported in (1997) 4 SCC 7 the promotion of the respondent was held up for adverse entries in the confidential report. The adverse entries were expunged by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court on the ground that the remarks were made due to malice and they smack of arbitrariness. The order of the High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court, as the adverse entries in the confidential report were found to be justified for pendency of the vigilance inquiry against the respondent. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph 7 of the report is as follows: "7. Before forming an opinion to be adverse, the reporting officers writing confidentials should share the information which is not part of the record with the officer concerned, have the information confronted by the officer and then make it part of the record. If, despite being given such an opportunity, the officer fails to perform the duty, correct his conduct or improve himself, necessarily the same may be recorded in the confidential reports and a copy thereof supplied to the affected officer so that he will have an opportunity to know the remarks made against him." 9(a). If, despite being given such an opportunity, the officer fails to perform the duty, correct his conduct or improve himself, necessarily the same may be recorded in the confidential reports and a copy thereof supplied to the affected officer so that he will have an opportunity to know the remarks made against him." 9(a). This proposition of law is laid down by the Supreme Court for making adverse entries in the confidential report and the said principle may be applicable for making adverse entries in the service book, because the entries made in the service book may be scrutinised by the authority concerned for formation of opinion of satisfactory service of the petitioner for her career advancement and for granting retirement benefits at the fag end of the service career. 10. In "Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation" reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353 it is held by the Supreme Court in paragraph 14 that delay should not be the ground for rejection of the writ petition if the right of the petitioner needs to be upheld. In the instant case, I do not find much delay on the part of the petitioner to move the writ court for establishment of her right. Even if there is some delay on the part of the petitioner to move the writ court that delay must be condoned for establishment of right of the petitioner with regard to the adverse entries made in her service book. With regard to the exercise of jurisdiction in deciding disputed questions of fact it is held by the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 of "Real Estate Agency v. Govt. of Goa" reported in 2013(3) CHN (SC) 126 that a writ petition involving serious disputed questions of fact which requires consideration of evidence which is not on record, will not normally be entertained by a court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is made clear by the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 of the said Report that the above proposition does not lay down an absolute rule that in all cases involving disputed questions of fact the parties should be relegated to a civil suit. It is made clear by the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 of the said Report that the above proposition does not lay down an absolute rule that in all cases involving disputed questions of fact the parties should be relegated to a civil suit. It is specifically held by the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 of the said Report that the High Court has jurisdiction to determine questions of fact, even if they are in dispute and in a case in which the dispute can be resolved by exchange of affidavits between the parties the High Court should proceed to try the petition instead of relegating the parties to a separate suit. In view of the above proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court, I am inclined to decide the dispute between the parties when the parties have exchanged the affidavits and the facts are on record. 11. It appears from Annexure P-9 to the writ application that the respondent no.5 made adverse entries in the service book of the petitioner on May 2, 2013 before sending the service book from the old school to the school where the petitioner joined as Headmistress on May 7, 2013. The respondent no.5 made the adverse entries to the effect that (i) the petitioner did not sign on the attendance register of the school in violation of the rules from July 19, 1997 to September 26, 1997, (ii) that the petitioner did not perform her duties and violated the norms of discipline of the school from June 28, 1999 to July 7, 1999, and (iii) that the petitioner took part in various illegal activities like boycotting the classes, refusal to check the answer scripts and to conduct the terminal examination of the school. The contesting respondent nos.4 and 5 have stated in paragraph 4(e) and (f) of the affidavit-in-opposition that the respondent no.5 made the above adverse entries in the service book of the petitioner on the basis of resolution of the Managing Committee of the old school. It appears from the resolution of the Managing Committee of the old school on January 12, 2010 (Annexure R-1 to the affidavit-in-opposition) that the respondent no.5 herself raised the issue of conduct and discipline of the petitioner before the Managing Committee and the Managing Committee passed the resolution for making entries of the conduct of the petitioner in her service book. With regard to the conduct of the petitioner about boycotting of the class, refusal to check the answer scripts of the students and refusal to conduct terminal examination, the respondent no.5 has not mentioned the date, month and year of the above conduct of the petitioner in the service book. With regard to non-performance of duties of the petitioner in the year 1999 the respondent no.5 has made the entries in the service book after long 14 years by keeping the petitioner in the dark. With regard to the allegation of not putting signature on the attendance register by the petitioner in the year 1997, the respondent no.5 has made the entries in the service book after long 15 years by keeping the petitioner in the dark. Had there been any misconduct on the part of the petitioner in the year 1997 or in the year 1999 the respondent nos.4 and 5 would have taken disciplinary action against the petitioner within reasonable period of time. Since the respondent nos.4 and 5 have not taken any disciplinary action against the petitioner with regard to the alleged misconduct of the petitioner, the respondent nos.4 and 5 cannot be permitted to make adverse entries in the service book of the petitioner with regard to those stale allegation of misconduct after long lapse of 14/15 years. Moreover, the petitioner was not communicated about the adverse remarks made in the service book either before making entry in the service book or even after making entry in the service book. The adverse entries have been made by the respondent no.5 on the basis of the resolution taken by the respondent no.4 in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. If there was any misconduct on the part of the petitioner in the year 1997 or 1999 the said charge has become stale after long lapse of time and the respondent authorities cannot be permitted to act on those stale allegations of misconduct after long lapse of 15 years, particularly when no opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner in this regard. It is relevant to point out that Mr. It is relevant to point out that Mr. Basu, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.4 and 5 has failed to point out any provision of law by which the respondent no.5 is authorised to make adverse entries in the service book with regard to the conduct of the petitioner after long lapse of 15 years and without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing in this regard. Accordingly, the adverse entries made in the service book of the petitioner by the respondent no.5 are liable to be expunged. 12. The petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that the respondent no.5 deducted the salary of the petitioner for 5 days in the month of September-2011 and 6 days in the month of November-2011 for absence of the petitioner from the school without submitting application for leave for regularisation of the absence. It appears from Annexure P-21 to the writ application that the respondent no.5 wanted to know the reasons from the petitioner for her absence from the school for 5 days in the month of September-2011 and for 6 days in the month of November-2011. The respondent nos.4 and 5 have specifically stated in paragraph 14 of the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner did not submit any formal application for leave for regularisation of her absence for the aforesaid period of time in the month of September-2011 and in the month of November-2011. However, it appears from Annexure P-22 to the writ application that the petitioner submitted formal application for leave for regularisation of her absence before the respondent no.5 by sending letter under speed post on 02.12.2011. The petitioner has explained before the respondent no.5 by sending letter on January 30, 2012 (P-24 to the writ application) that she could not submit formal leave application before obtaining the leave as she was confused whether leave application should have been addressed to the Drawing and Disbursing Officer in the absence of existence of the Managing Committee of the school at the relevant point of time. The copy of all the leave applications have been annexed to the said letter addressed to the respondent no.5 (P-24 to the writ application). The copy of all the leave applications have been annexed to the said letter addressed to the respondent no.5 (P-24 to the writ application). No explanation is forthcoming before the court as to why the absence of the petitioner for 5 days in the month of September-2011 and for 6 days in the month of November-2011 was not regularised by a grant of leave. In view of submission of copy of letters and copy of application for leave by the petitioner before the respondent no.5, I am unable to accept the contention made on behalf of the respondent nos.4 and 5 that the petitioner did not submit application for leave for regularisation of her absence from the school. It appears from the documents annexed to the writ application (P-21, P-22, P-23, P-24 to the writ application) that the petitioner applied for leave on medical ground without submitting medical certificate from a medical officer or registered medical practitioner. It appears from Rule 4 of the Leave Rules for grant of leave to the teaching and non-teaching staff of recognised non-government secondary schools other than sponsored or any other schools or class of schools as the Government may be specify (hereinafter referred to as the Leave Rules) that leave on medical ground may be sanctioned only when the leave application is supported by medical certificate from a medical officer or a recognised medical practitioner and a fit certificate at the time of resuming duties. In the instant case, the petitioner did not annex either the medical certificate from a medical officer or a registered medical practitioner or fit certificate from the doctor before resuming duty and as such the petitioner is not entitled to get leave on medical ground. However, the petitioner is entitled to get leave on half average pay for the entire period of absence from the school in the month of September, 2011 and in the month of November, 2011 even without production of medical certificate. This leave can be granted under Rule 3 of the Leave Rules by which the petitioner is governed. It is not the case of the respondent nos.4 and 5 that the leave on half average pay is not in the credit of the petitioner. This leave can be granted under Rule 3 of the Leave Rules by which the petitioner is governed. It is not the case of the respondent nos.4 and 5 that the leave on half average pay is not in the credit of the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent nos.4 and 5 are duty bound to grant leave to the petitioner under Rule 3 of the leave rules by which the petitioner is governed for the entire period of absence of the petitioner from the school in the month of September, 2011 and in the month of November, 2011 for the purpose of regularisation of her absence from the school. Once the absence of the petitioner from the school for the aforesaid period of time is regularised by grant of leave, the respondent nos.4 and 5 will take all necessary steps for release of the salary of the petitioner which was withheld for her absence from the school in the month of September, 2011 and in the month of November, 2011. 13. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent authorities did not contribute the amount of provident fund of the petitioner for the month of March-1999, August-2003 and January-2006. It is also alleged that the respondent no.5 could not produce copy of treasury challan at the time of inquiry in the year 2001 to show contribution of the amount of provident fund in the account of provident fund of the petitioner for the month of August-1997. The respondent nos.4 and 5 have stated in paragraph 16 of the affidavit-in-opposition that GPF contribution of the petitioner is duly reflected in the statement of GPF account from the month of September, 1997 onwards. It is not possible for the Writ Court to calculate from the document produced by the parties to decipher the discrepancies in the deposit of contribution of the provident fund of the petitioner in her provident fund account. Without deciding the said disputed fact about discrepancies in the deposit of the amount of contribution of the provident fund of the petitioner, I am of the view that the respondent nos.4 and 5 must provide relevant statement of provident fund account of the petitioner within reasonable period of time, so that the petitioner may get contribution of her provident fund for the month of August-1997 and March-1999, August-2003 and January-2006. 14. 14. The respondent nos.4 and 5 have mentioned in paragraph 4(g) of the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner and some other assistant teachers of the old school attended the school from July 14, 1997 to September 26, 1997, but they did not sign the attendance register. It is stated by the said respondents that all the said teachers signed on the attendance register on September 26, 1997. Since the assistant teachers including the petitioner attended the school and since the respondents authorities did not take any action for the said conduct of the petitioner in the year 1997, the respondents authorities including the respondent nos.4 and 5 cannot be permitted to take action by making adverse entries in the service record of the petitioner after long lapse of almost 15 years. So the resolution of the respondent no.4 to the effect that the said conduct of the petitioner must be recorded in the service book of the petitioner is not justified under the law. 15. Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents submits that the State respondents will abide by the decision of this Court and the State respondents will implement any direction which will be given by this Court. Mr. Bhattacharya, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged this court to direct the concerned Magistrate to conduct an inquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the respondent no.5. I do not find that the respondent no.5 is liable to be prosecuted under the penal law for the conduct alleged in the writ petition. I am unable to agree with Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner to refer the matter to the concerned Magistrate for conducting inquiry against the respondent no.5 under 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 16. In view of my above findings, the writ petition succeeds in part, but there will be no order as to costs. The respondent nos.4 and 5 are directed to expunge the adverse entries made in the service book of the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of the order. 16. In view of my above findings, the writ petition succeeds in part, but there will be no order as to costs. The respondent nos.4 and 5 are directed to expunge the adverse entries made in the service book of the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of the order. The respondent nos.4 and 5 are also directed to regularise the absence of the petitioner from the school in the month of September, 2011 and in the month of November, 2011 by granting leave on half average pay under Rule 3 of Leave Rules within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of the order. The respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 are directed to disburse the salary of the petitioner which was withheld on the allegation of not submitting application for leave for regularisation of the absence within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of the order. The respondent nos.4 and 5 are restrained from taking any action against the petitioner on the basis of resolution of the Managing Committee of the old school on 10.07.2008 and 12.01.2010. The respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 are also directed to remove the discrepancies in the provident fund account of the petitioner by showing her contribution in the provident fund account for the month of August-1997, March-1999, August-2003 and January-2006 within a period of 6 months from the date of communication of the order. Learned Counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5 has prayed for stay of operation of the order for limited period which is duly considered and rejected.