JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner claims to be an Assistant Teacher of the Madrasah. He claims that he made a complaint on 26th July, 2016 before the Teacher-in-Charge of the said Madrasah. Such complaint was made through the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Madrasah. In the complaint, the petitioner has sought to bring it to the knowledge of the Teacher-in-Charge and other authorities including the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), North 24-Parganas regarding financial misappropriation made by the then Teacher-in-Charge, who was retired on 31st July, 2016. Since, it is apparent from the writ petition itself that the complaint has been made on 26th July, 2016 only four days before the retirement as Teacher-in-Charge. It is not expected that the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), North 24-Parganas or any other authority could complete the enquiry within a period of four days to ascertain whether the complaint made by the petitioner was correct or not. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 5 and 7 submits that in the meantime before the retirement of the said Teacher-in-Charge by a letter dated 1st August, 2016 that is much before the petitioner’s complaint was filed, ‘no liability’ certificate was issued by the concerned Teacher-in-Charge of the Madrasah. The petitioner submits that the said complaint has not been enquired into and prays that the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) may be directed to make an enquiry into the matter. 3. After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record since it is apparent that the complaint was not made in time and more specifically to say that such complaint reached the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) only four days before the retirement of the Teacher-in-Charge, no direction can be given to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) to make any enquiry on the basis of the said complaint dated 26th July, 2016 addressed to the Teacher-in-Charge with a copy to the District Inspector of Schools. It is also made clear that once ‘no liability’ certificate has been furnished by the concerned management of the school in favour of the retiring Teacher, after retirement of such teacher from his service on 31st July, 2016 since the master servant relationship ceases to exist the District Inspector of Schools at this stage cannot be directed to pass any order on the said representation. However, it is submitted by the petitioner that he has also made other complaint before the police authority and other authorities unconnected with the service. 4. Considering such circumstances, it is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner proceeding with those complaints independently. 5. The writ petition is dismissed.