JUDGMENT : DIPANKAR DATTA, J. 1. The writ appeal (F.M.A. 984 of 2015) is at the instance of the Managing Committee of Uttar Dum Dum Vidyapith for Girls (H.S.) (hereafter the school). It registers a challenge to an interim order of injunction dated June 13, 2014, passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 37853(W) of 2013, being a writ petition presented by the Headmistress of the school, respondent no. 1 in this appeal (hereafter the writ petitioner). By the order impugned, the learned Judge while calling for affidavits restrained the respondents in the writ petition from proceeding further against the writ petitioner on the basis of a charge-sheet dated September 20, 2011 and the enquiry report submitted in pursuance thereof until further orders. 2. The events leading to presentation of the writ petition may be noticed first. (i) The Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school, pursuant to a decision taken in an emergency meeting of such committee on July 30, 2011, called upon the writ petitioner to show cause by a notice dated August 3, 2011 as to why disciplinary action shall not be initiated. The notice referred to an incident that took place in the school premises on July 28, 2011 at about 4.10 pm. On that day, a student of class XII of the school did not use the urinal in the toilet on the alleged ground that it was dirty and urinated outside the toilet. The writ petitioner apparently punished the student by asking her to write on a piece of paper “I have urinated outside” (the Bengali version translated into English by us) and made her to hold such paper with her hands like a poster and stand near the gate of the school so as to be visible to all. Allegedly, the writ petitioner had also instructed an assistant teacher of the school to make an announcement by mike in the classrooms to be audible to all the students, thereby asking them to move out of the school through the main gate only so that they could see the erring student holding the writing while standing thereat. According to the Managing Committee, the situation was quite ordinary which could have been settled upon discussion with the Assistant Headmistress and other teachers or even by imposing minor punishment. According to the Managing Committee, the situation was quite ordinary which could have been settled upon discussion with the Assistant Headmistress and other teachers or even by imposing minor punishment. As a result of such incident, there was demonstration by agitated guardians who damaged school property for which even the local police had to intervene. The incident was reported by print and electronic media extensively and as a consequence thereof, the good name of the school had been tarnished because of the wrongful activities of the writ petitioner calling for disciplinary action. (ii) The writ petitioner duly responded to the show cause notice by submitting a representation dated August 8, 2011. According to her, she had objected to an indecent act of a class XII student and had sought to enforce discipline amongst the students and such an action did not warrant disciplinary action. (iii) The Managing Committee in its meeting dated August 23, 2011 resolved to place the writ petitioner under suspension. It was also resolved to direct the writ petitioner to show cause why regular disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalty shall not be initiated against her. The resolution dated August 23, 2011 was furnished to the writ petitioner by the Secretary vide letter dated August 24, 2011. (iv) The writ petitioner replied on September 2, 2011. She once again put forth her version as to why no disciplinary action was called for against her and, accordingly, prayed for withdrawal of the order of suspension. (v) Soon thereafter, a charge-sheet dated September 20, 2011 was served upon the writ petitioner. A reply dated October 8, 2011 thereto followed from the end of the writ petitioner. The Managing Committee on consideration of such reply decided to hold an enquiry and, accordingly, appointed Sri Amarendra Nath Mukherji, a retired Headmaster, to conduct enquiry. (vi) The decision of the Managing Committee placing the writ petitioner under suspension was thereafter placed before the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (hereafter the Board) for its approval. The Committee constituted under section 24 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act (hereafter the section 24 Committee) approved such decision on August 8, 2012. Such decision of the section 24 Committee was communicated to the Managing Committee of the school by the Board vide memo dated August 21, 2012. The Committee constituted under section 24 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act (hereafter the section 24 Committee) approved such decision on August 8, 2012. Such decision of the section 24 Committee was communicated to the Managing Committee of the school by the Board vide memo dated August 21, 2012. (vii) Approval of suspension by the section 24 Committee of the Board on August 8, 2012 was challenged by the writ petitioner by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court [W.P. 23361(W) of 2012]. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated February 13, 2013. According to the learned Judge who heard such writ petition, the order of the section 24 Committee dated August 8, 2012 suffered from procedural impropriety in view of the law laid down in the decision reported in 2010 (1) CLJ (Cal) 107 [Sri Maya Sankar Jha v. The State of West Bengal & ors.]; consequently the impugned order was set aside and steps taken on the basis thereof by the Managing Committee were also set aside. The concerned respondent authority was directed to pass an order afresh in the light of the observations made in the order within two months. (viii) In view of setting aside of the order of the section 24 Committee, the writ petitioner by her letter dated March 22, 2013 requested the Secretary of the Managing Committee to permit her resume duty and to reply within a week. The Secretary of the Managing Committee replied by his letter dated March 29, 2013 as follows: “At the out set I say that your said letter is misconceived one and you are wrongly advised to do so as it is also contrary to the solemn orders passed in the above referred writ petition being W.P. No. 23361 (w) of 2012 and also in the earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 16063 (w) of 2011. It is admitted fact that the Hon’ble High Court by its order dated 13/02/2013 was pleased to set aside the order of approval of suspension order and also quashed and set aside the steps taken on the basis of the said order of approval but did not touch the order of suspension passed by the managing committee of the School dated 23/08/2011 and also the Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct the respondent authority, i.e. the Board of Secondary Education to pass an order afresh within two months from the date and to communicate the same to all concerned including the petitioner within one week thereafter. So at this stage question of allowing you to resume your duty can not arise at all.” (underlining for emphasis) (ix) Soon thereafter, in compliance with the order dated February 13, 2013, the Administrator of the Board upon hearing the writ petitioner, the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school as well as the teacher-in-charge of the school passed an order dated June 10, 2013, relevant portion whereof reads as follows: “In view of the direction of the Hon’ble High Court dt., there is no other alternative than to start the proceeding de novo as the order dt. 8.8.12 & 21.8.12 were quashed by the Hon’ble Court. Further more, it appears from the opinion of the enquiry officer dt. 4.4.12, the delinquent Headmistress did not appear before the enquiry officer despite issuance several notices. Therefore, it would be proper and appropriate pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble High Court that an order afresh containing the details with regard to allegation raised against the delinquent be issued at first stage in obedience to Rule 28(8) of Management Of Recognized Non-Government Institutions (Aided & Unaided) Rules, 1969 as amended from time to time and to follow the subsequent stage in accordance with law. Be it mentioned, the erstwhile enquiry officer Sri Amarendra Nath Mukherji, a retired Headmaster shall not be placed in charge of the de novo enquiry to dispel any doubt. Thus, pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble High Court, I the Administrator, W.B.B.S.E. in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under sec 50(I)(b), W.B.B.S.E. Act, 1963 as amended do hereby direct the Secretary of the M.C to hold an enquiry afresh by appointing an enquiry officer other than Sri Amarendra Nath Mukherji, a retired Headmaster. Thus, pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble High Court, I the Administrator, W.B.B.S.E. in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under sec 50(I)(b), W.B.B.S.E. Act, 1963 as amended do hereby direct the Secretary of the M.C to hold an enquiry afresh by appointing an enquiry officer other than Sri Amarendra Nath Mukherji, a retired Headmaster. The newly appointed enquiry officer shall hold enquiry afresh against the Headmistress of the School containing the details with regard to the allegations raised against her in obedience to rule 28 (8) of Management Of Recognized Non-Government Institutions (Aided& Unaided) Rules, 1969 as amended after serving fresh notice to the delinquent at the earliest.” (x) Upon communication of the order of the administrator, the Managing Committee appointed Shri Amar Chandra Som, Headmaster, Shyamaprasad Nagar High School (HS) (hereafter Shri Som) as an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the writ petitioner. Appointment of Shri Som as enquiry officer was sought to be communicated to the writ petitioner by the Secretary of the Managing Committee by his letter dated July 5, 2013 (not on record but produced in course of the proceedings before us). That the writ petitioner received such memo, however, could not be proved at the time of hearing. (xi) Be that as it may, Shri Som issued notice of enquiry to the writ petitioner calling upon her to remain present. The reply of the petitioner to the such notice is neither on record nor has been produced by the parties. In response to the second notice dated August 6, 2013 issued by Shri Som, the writ petitioner by her letter dated August 23, 2013 sought for an adjournment of proceedings scheduled to be held on August 25, 2013 on the ground of ill-health. Such reply was received by Shri Som on August 26, 2013. In response to the third notice of hearing (the enquiry being scheduled to be held in the school premises on September 22, 2013), the writ petitioner through her advocate sent a notice dated September 19, 2013. Such reply was received by Shri Som on August 26, 2013. In response to the third notice of hearing (the enquiry being scheduled to be held in the school premises on September 22, 2013), the writ petitioner through her advocate sent a notice dated September 19, 2013. By such notice, the learned advocate acting on behalf of the writ petitioner urged that the decision of the Managing Committee to suspend the writ petitioner from service did not have the approval of the Board and, therefore, unless the writ petitioner is permitted to resume duty, she may not be in a position to participate in the enquiry. The Secretary was further informed that without permitting the writ petitioner to so resume, he had no authority to proceed with the enquiry scheduled to be held on September 22, 2013. Copy of such notice was also furnished to Shri Som. (xii) In response thereto, the learned advocate for the Secretary of the Managing Committee by his reply dated September 27, 2013 reiterated that the Managing Committee had not acted contrary to law or to any order passed by this Court and that the letter dated September 19, 2013 may be withdrawn. (xiii) Since the Managing Committee did not permit the writ petitioner to resume duty as Headmistress, she did not participate in the enquiry. Shri Som held ex parte proceedings and submitted a report of enquiry dated September 27, 2013. A finding was returned that the writ petitioner as Headmistress “violated the fundamentals of Human Rights and the Right to Education Act”, and that the “action taken by the Headmistress deserves to be censured severely as an example of caution to the teachers of Secondary/Higher Secondary Schools in the matter of inflicting any sort of punishment to a student to whom they are like parents”. (xiv) Copy of such enquiry report was furnished to the writ petitioner by the Secretary of the Managing Committee vide letter dated October 9, 2013 calling upon her to submit her comments thereto. The writ petitioner retorted by her letter dated October 25, 2013. According to her, the Managing Committee had committed contempt by acting mala fide and she threatened to move the Court for relief. The writ petitioner retorted by her letter dated October 25, 2013. According to her, the Managing Committee had committed contempt by acting mala fide and she threatened to move the Court for relief. (xv) In keeping with what was said in the letter dated October 25, 2013, the writ petitioner presented W.P. 37853(W) of 2013 before this Court seeking, inter alia, the following relief : “(a) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the school authority to allow your petitioner to join her duty as headmistress of the said school namely Uttar Dum Dum Vidyapith for girls (H.S.). (b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the concerned respondent authorities not to give any effect or further effect and/or not to proceed further pursuant to the letter dated 9.10.2013 issued by the Secretary of the school being annexure P-15 to the writ petition. (c) To set aside the entire proceedings including the enquiry report submitted before the Secretary of the school being Annexure P-15 to the writ petition.” It was upon hearing this writ petition at the admission stage that the order dated June 13, 2014, impugned in the writ appeal, was passed. 3. Now, certain post-appeal developments need to be noted. (i) In connection with the writ appeal, the Managing Committee had applied for stay (CAN 7124 of 2014). A coordinate Bench by order dated January 30, 2015 directed preparation of paper books and listing of the appeal for hearing as soon as the formalities regarding service are complete and paper books are filed, stayed the operation of the order impugned dated June 13, 2014 and granted liberty to the Managing Committee to approach the Court for appropriate leave before implementing the final order, if any, passed in the meantime. (ii) During the pendency of the writ appeal, the Managing Committee had applied for leave (C.A.N. 9120 of 2016) to act in terms of an order of approval passed by the administrator of the Board dated June 23, 2016. It appears on perusal of the order dated June 23, 2016 that the report of enquiry submitted by Shri Som had been accepted by the Managing Committee and a notice was served upon her on August 28, 2015 asking her to show cause why she shall not be dismissed from service, to which she replied on September 10, 2015. It appears on perusal of the order dated June 23, 2016 that the report of enquiry submitted by Shri Som had been accepted by the Managing Committee and a notice was served upon her on August 28, 2015 asking her to show cause why she shall not be dismissed from service, to which she replied on September 10, 2015. Such reply was considered by the Managing Committee in its meeting held on September 29, 2015 and the explanation having been found to be dissatisfactory, it was resolved to dismiss the writ petitioner from service for the interest of the students of the school. The decision was again forwarded by the Managing Committee to the Board for necessary approval and that the administrator found sufficient ground to accord approval, which was accordingly accorded provided there is no contrary order of the Court. (iii) It is also noted that the father of the class XII student who had been sought to be disciplined by the writ petitioner had lodged an FIR. Investigation followed, resulting in a charge-sheet under section 173(2), Code of Criminal Procedure being submitted before the relevant magistrate. The writ petitioner faced trial. Since there was a truce between the complainant and the writ petitioner and the concerned student had cleared the Higher Secondary examination and left school in the meanwhile, the complainant did not adduce any evidence and the charge against the writ petitioner not having been proved, she was acquitted. 4. These being more or less the undisputed facts, the applications and the writ appeal have been heard in the presence of Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate for the Managing Committee and Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate for the writ petitioner. 5. According to Mr. Chatterjee, the writ petitioner deliberately stayed away from the enquiry proceedings and the Managing Committee having complied with each and every statutory formality as laid down in rule 28(8) of the Rules for Management of Recognized Non-Government Institutions (Aided & Unaided) Rules, 1969 (hereafter the Management Rules), leave ought to be granted to implement the order dated June 30, 2016 of the administrator of the Board, and thereby dismiss the writ petitioner from service for proved misconduct. 6. 6. It is worthy to record at this stage that the finding of the learned Judge holding prayer (a) of the writ petition to be not barred by res judicata and/or analogous principles has not been argued by Mr. Chatterjee to be erroneous, and rightly so. 7. Per contra, Mr. Sanyal has contended that the proceedings have not been duly conducted and having regard to the prima facie findings returned by the learned Judge in the order impugned which do not suffer from any infirmity, the appeal ought to be dismissed and steps taken pursuant to leave granted by the order dated January 30, 2015 declared to be of no effect. 8. Before proceeding to examine the rival contentions, it would be useful to note the reasons assigned by the learned Judge for granting injunction in favour of the writ petitioner. It appears on perusal thereof that the writ petitioner had relied on the observations made by the administrator in his order dated June 10, 2013 to the effect that there was no other alternative but to start “proceeding de novo as the order dt. 8.8.12 & 21.8.12 were quashed by the Hon’ble Court” and also that “it would be proper and appropriate pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble High Court that an order afresh containing the details with regard to allegation raised against the delinquent be issued at first stage in obedience to Rule 28(8) …. and to follow the subsequent stage in accordance with law”. It was contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that enquiry could not have been conducted in pursuance of the charge-sheet dated September 20, 2011 and that the Managing Committee was under obligation to issue a fresh charge-sheet in compliance with the order of the administrator of the Board dated June 10, 2013. On the contrary, it was contended on behalf of the Managing Committee that since the charge-sheet dated September 20, 2011 had not been quashed by the order dated February 13, 2013, “there was no bar and/or impediment to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding on the basis of the above charge-sheet”. On the contrary, it was contended on behalf of the Managing Committee that since the charge-sheet dated September 20, 2011 had not been quashed by the order dated February 13, 2013, “there was no bar and/or impediment to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding on the basis of the above charge-sheet”. Upon hearing such rival contentions, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the following order: “After further prima facie consideration of the order dated June 10, 2013 passed by the respondent-Board it appears that the respondent-School was directed to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (8) of Rule 28 of the Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided & Unaided) Rules, 1969 from the first stage. Upon perusal of the above provision, I prima facie find that the first stage of proceeding against the petitioner was to issue a charge sheet but the respondent-School proceeded against the petitioner on the basis of the previous charge sheet dated September 20, 2011. I am of the prima facie opinion that there was no scope of proceeding on the basis of the previous charge sheet after the direction of the respondent –Board to proceed afresh from the first stage of sub-rule (8) of Rule 28 of the Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided & Unaided) Rules, 1969. In view of the above, the petitioner has not only made out a strong prima facie case but the balance of convenience and/or inconvenience is in favour of granting interim relief to the petitioner. The respondents are strained from proceeding further in the above matter against the petitioner on the basis of the charge sheet dated September 20, 2011 and the impugned enquiry report until further orders. In view of the prima facie consideration of the admitted fact that there is no existence of the order of suspension after the order dated June 10, 2013, the respondent authorities are directed to allow the petitioner to join her service.” 9. Mr. In view of the prima facie consideration of the admitted fact that there is no existence of the order of suspension after the order dated June 10, 2013, the respondent authorities are directed to allow the petitioner to join her service.” 9. Mr. Sanyal, drawing our attention to the observations made by the administrator, which immediately precede the operative part of his order as well as in the operative part, has contended that the order of the administrator dated June 10, 2013 is capable of two views on interpretation and the learned Judge having interpreted the order by taking one view out of the two possible views, which is not absurd, we may not interfere in appeal. 10. Mr. Chatterjee, however, referred to the operative part of the order of the administrator to contend that the proceedings were directed to be continued and concluded from the stage of appointment of an enquiry officer afresh, nothing more nothing less. 11. Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules has exercised the consideration of this Court on numerous occasions. That rule 28(8) is not happily worded and leaves room for confusion has also been observed in quite a few number of decisions rendered by this Court. The confusion, however, seems to have been set at rest by a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1999 (1) CHN 521 (Arum Kumar Hait v. State of West Bengal & ors.). Paragraph 33 of the decision in Arun Kumar Hait (supra) refers to the various steps required to be taken for commencing and concluding disciplinary proceedings initiated under rule 28(8), reading as follows: “33. The express procedure is specifically provided by Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules as clarified by the notifications issued by the WBBSE. Although we have dealt with the express steps envisaged in connection with the first two questions framed, nevertheless it would be convenient to recapitulate the same briefly for the purpose of this question. The express procedure is specifically provided by Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules as clarified by the notifications issued by the WBBSE. Although we have dealt with the express steps envisaged in connection with the first two questions framed, nevertheless it would be convenient to recapitulate the same briefly for the purpose of this question. The first stage of disciplinary proceeding requires the Managing Committee to: (i) draw formal proceedings; (ii) issue a charge-sheet to the delinquent; (iii) offer the delinquent reasonable facilities for defending himself; (iv) grant the delinquent an opportunity to submit his explanation within a fortnight from the date of the receipt of the charge-sheet; (v) consider and take a decision on the basis of the material; (vi) send all relevant papers including the charge-sheet, explanations submitted by the delinquent and the reasons for the decision to the WBBSE. If the Board approves the decision of the Managing Committee to take disciplinary action, the second stage of the disciplinary proceeding commences. At this state the Managing Committee must: (a) issue a show cause to the delinquent ordinarily within fortnight why he should not be dismissed or removed from service; (b) give the delinquent an opportunity to submit an explanation; (c) take a decision on the action proposed to be taken; (d) send all relevant papers including the explanation submitted by the delinquent, as well as the recommendation for the action proposed to be taken to the Board. If the Board approves the decision of the Committee with regard to the action proposed, the Managing Committee can remove or dismiss the delinquent.” 12. The steps taken by the Managing Committee in the present case against the writ petitioner, according to Mr. Chatterjee, have to be tested in the light of what has been held in paragraph 33 of the decision in Arun Kumar Hait (supra). 13. Admittedly, the charge-sheet dated September 20, 2011 was issued to the petitioner containing five articles of charge based on a single incident. The writ petitioner had replied to each and every article of charge. In W.P. 23361(W) of 2012, the writ petitioner did not challenge the charge-sheet; instead the order of the section 24 Committee dated August 8, 2012 was challenged by her whereby suspension was approved. The writ petitioner had replied to each and every article of charge. In W.P. 23361(W) of 2012, the writ petitioner did not challenge the charge-sheet; instead the order of the section 24 Committee dated August 8, 2012 was challenged by her whereby suspension was approved. While disposing of the writ petition by order dated February 13, 2013, the learned Judge quashed the impugned order and steps taken on the basis of the order impugned. The charge-sheet dated September 20, 2011 was not a step taken on the basis of the order dated August 8, 2012. The administrator observed that the erstwhile enquiry officer “shall not be placed in charge of the de novo enquiry to dispel any doubt”, that the Secretary of the Managing Committee shall “hold an enquiry afresh by appointing an enquiry officer other than …….” and that the “newly appointed enquiry officer shall hold enquiry afresh….”. By observing that there ought to be a de novo proceeding in view of setting aside of the order dated August 8, 2012, the administrator never meant that a charge-sheet afresh has to be issued. What he intended was that the charge-sheet and its reply thereto being on record, there ought to be a fresh enquiry conducted by an officer other than Shri Amarendra Nath Mukerji. In that view of the matter, the finding of the learned Judge in the impugned order to the effect that a fresh charge-sheet was required to be issued does not commend to us to be proper. It is clear that the Managing Committee was under no obligation to issue fresh charge-sheet, having regard to the attending facts and circumstances including the fact that the charge-sheet dated September 20, 2011 was never the subject matter of challenge in any proceeding before this Court. The contention of Mr. Sanyal to the contrary cannot be accepted and is thus overruled. 14. However, what has pained us and impels us to decline leave as prayed for by the Managing Committee to implement the order of the administrator of the Board dated June 23, 2016 is this. It is clear as crystal that the writ petitioner, as Headmistress, seeking to enforce discipline amongst the students of the school is faced with the prospect of herself being subjected to disciplinary action by dismissal from service. It is clear as crystal that the writ petitioner, as Headmistress, seeking to enforce discipline amongst the students of the school is faced with the prospect of herself being subjected to disciplinary action by dismissal from service. Dismissal from service is the extreme disciplinary action that a managing committee of a school can take against a teacher for proved misconduct in terms of the Management Rules. It would not be fair on our part to make any observation at this stage as to whether on the strength of proof of the charges framed against the writ petitioner, dismissal is an appropriate punishment or not. Suffice it to note, certain procedural safeguards that are statutorily recognized have to be strictly followed if a managing committee of a school seeks to terminate the service of a teacher by ordering dismissal or removal on a charge of misconduct, whether grave or not. In such a case, the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the teacher must be near about flawless, in the sense that fullest opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to defend himself in the proceedings in compliance with principles of natural justice and no scope ought to be left by the managing committee for the proceedings to be invalidated, if challenged in Court, on the ground of procedural impropriety or other valid reason. Here, the writ petitioner stayed away from the proceedings, the enquiry progressed in her absence, and further steps have been taken with the result that only the leave of this Court is required to dismiss her from service. The question obviously arising for our decision is, whether the enquiry should have proceeded against the writ petitioner ex parte? We observe, on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, that the writ petitioner had sufficient justification for not attending the enquiry and the report of enquiry, prepared in pursuance of the enquiry which was conducted in her absence, should not form the foundation for disciplinary action against her. Steps taken including the decision to place a teacher under suspension, either in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings or pending enquiry, in terms of rule 28(9)(viia) of the Management Rules must have the approval of the Board. Steps taken including the decision to place a teacher under suspension, either in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings or pending enquiry, in terms of rule 28(9)(viia) of the Management Rules must have the approval of the Board. The decision of the Managing Committee placing the writ petitioner under suspension dated July 23, 2011 was approved by the section 24 Committee by its order dated August 8, 2012; however, the order dated August 8, 2012 was set aside by the judgment and order dated February 13, 2013. Thereafter, there appears to be no resolution/decision/order of the Board approving the decision of the Managing Committee dated August 23, 2011 to suspend the writ petitioner. In the absence of such approval, there was no valid order in the eye of law by reason whereof the writ petitioner could be continued under suspension. The writ petitioner, through her learned advocate, asserted that she should be allowed to resume duty prior to her participation in the enquiry. The notice sent by the learned advocate was duly received by the Secretary of the Managing Committee as well as Shri Som, the enquiry officer. While Shri Som took umbrage at the writ petitioner, through her learned advocate, having challenged the authority of Shri Som to conduct enquiry, the learned advocate for the Secretary in his reply dated September 27, 2013 (to the notice of the learned advocate for the writ petitioner dated September 19, 2013) placed the version of the Secretary that since the judgment and order dated February 13, 2013 “did not touch the order of suspension passed by the Managing Committee of the school dated 23.08.2011”, the writ petitioner was acting contrary to the order of the Court by insisting on resumption of duty. To our mind, the stand of the Secretary of the Managing Committee is unsound and untenable, hence unacceptable. Upon the order of approval dated August 8, 2012 passed by the section 24 Committee being set aside by the judgment and order dated February 13, 2013, and the administrator of the Board in his order dated June 10, 2013 not having spent a word towards grant of approval to the decision of the Managing Committee placing the writ petitioner under suspension, the Managing Committee acted in excess of jurisdiction by refusing permission to the writ petitioner to resume duty. We do not consider that the writ petitioner by seeking permission to resume duty prior to participating in the enquiry defied any order passed by this Court; on the contrary, she was justified in making such prayer as well as in staying away from the enquiry, without adequate and acceptable justification being proffered by the Managing Committee to decline such permission. An attempt of the Managing Committee to ensure that the writ petitioner does not resume duty and she is compelled to participate in the enquiry as the suspended Headmistress of the school is clearly discernible, which was undesirable and uncalled for. The writ petitioner was entitled in law to claim that she participates in the enquiry maintaining her status as Headmistress intact. Refusal on the part of the Managing Committee to allow the writ petitioner resume duty resulted in her staying away and being condemned unheard. Arun Kumar Hait (supra) emphasizes on the need for extending reasonable facilities to a delinquent teacher to defend the charges drawn up against him. Sadly, such facility was denied to the writ petitioner. For patent breach of principles of natural justice, the ex parte enquiry proceedings conducted against the writ petitioner must fail. Although not agreeing with the reason assigned by the learned Judge for injuncting the Managing Committee to proceed with the enquiry, in the ultimate analysis we hold that the Managing Committee should not have proceeded with the enquiry against the writ petitioner without permitting her to resume duty and the disciplinary proceedings continued against the writ petitioner, after the order dated June 10, 2013 of the administrator of the Board, stood vitiated at the first stage itself. In the view we have taken, we find no reason to grant leave as prayed for by the Managing Committee. The decision of the Managing Committee dated September 29, 2015 proposing to the Board to dismiss the writ petitioner from service and the order of the administrator dated June 23, 2016 approving the proposal, being steps taken in terms of the interim order passed on this writ appeal by the coordinate Bench, cannot be sustained in law and hence, shall be of no effect in future. 15. CAN 9120 of 2016, accordingly, is dismissed. 16. For the reasons as aforesaid, we further dismiss F.M.A. 984 of 2015 together with C.A.N. 7124 of 2014. 17. 15. CAN 9120 of 2016, accordingly, is dismissed. 16. For the reasons as aforesaid, we further dismiss F.M.A. 984 of 2015 together with C.A.N. 7124 of 2014. 17. Having regard to the views expressed by us as above, we find that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending. W.P. 37853(W) of 2013 also stands disposed of, treating it as on the day’s list. The enquiry report prepared by Shri Som shall also be of no effect. The writ petitioner shall be permitted by the Managing Committee to resume duty immediately but not later than a fortnight from date of service of a copy of this judgment and order. Enquiry proceedings may resume de novo with Shri Som as the enquiry officer, whereafter subsequent steps shall be taken strictly in accordance with rule 28(8) of the Management Rules, as interpreted in Arun Kumar Hait (supra). Needless to observe, the Board not having approved her suspension from service, the writ petitioner shall be entitled to full salary for the period spent under suspension, minus subsistence allowance already paid. The quantified amount shall be released in her favour within a month. 18. Shri Som is also a respondent in the writ petition and we are conscious that it has been disposed of in his absence. However, we are sure that Shri Som cannot have any personal interest in the subject matter of the litigation being a delegate of the Managing Committee to hold enquiry and keeping the writ petition pending on the specious ground that he has not been put on notice, would not further the ends of justice. 19. There shall be no order for costs. 20. Before parting, we hope and trust that wise counsel shall prevail and by putting extraneous considerations aside, a quietus would be reached by the parties as early as possible enuring to the benefit of all concerned. 21. Photocopy of this order, duly countersigned by the concerned Assistant Registrar (Court), shall be retained with the records of W.P. 37857(W) of 2013. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied, may be furnished to the applicant at an early date. SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, J. I agree.