Judgment:
While deciding this appeal our attention was drawn to the plight of the Principal of a renowned college of West Bengal who had to suffer immensely at the instance of the Governing Body of the college.
The learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal beautifully described the high-handed arbitrary acts on the part of the Governing Body while conducting disciplinary proceedings against the Principal of the college.
The learned Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment and order under appeal demonstrated that the members of the Governing Body were not at all keen to observe the principles of natural justice and procedural justice by granting minimum opportunity to the said Principal to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings. Unfortunately, the members of the Governing Body were unmindful of the position of the Principal of a college.
A Principal can be subjected to disciplinary proceedings but while conducting the said disciplinary proceedings, norms relating to principles of natural justice, procedural justice apart from other relevant Statutory Rules should be strictly followed.
In the present case, learned Single Judge has pointed out that the Governing Body proceeded against the Principal of the college in order to punish him at the time of retirement.
The conduct of the Governing Body as found by the learned Single Judge is shocking and the time has come when the members of the Governing Body should be reminded that reckless action/actions on the part of the Governing Body would not only prejudice the interests of the teaching and/or non-teaching employee/employees of the college but the same would also considerably damage the prospect of the institution.
The respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Principal of Sera pore Girls College. The Governing Body of the said college initiated disciplinary proceedings against the said Principal upon issuing charge-sheet on 31st July, 2003.
It has been stated on behalf of the Principal that he was out of station on and from 6th August, 2003 to 13th August, 2003 and returned only on 14th August, 2003 when he came to know that the postal peon asked him to take delivery of a registered letter. Since 15th August, 2003 was holiday, the respondent/writ petitioner collected the said registered envelope containing the charge-sheet on 16th August, 2003.
The said respondent/writ petitioner was directed to submit reply to the charge-sheet within 15 days. It was, however, not specified in the said charge-sheet whether such reply should be submitted within 15 days from the date of the charge-sheet or from the date of receipt thereof.
The respondent/writ petitioner thought that reply to the said charge sheet should be submitted within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same.
The President of the Governing Body of the college, thereafter, published a notice in the two daily newspapers on 20th August, 2003 wherein it was alleged that the respondent/writ petitioner had failed to contact the Enquiry Officer despite notice and the said Principal was asked to contact the Enquiry Officer in order to examine the documents relating to the alleged irregularities.
The Principal of the college, however, informed the President of the Governing Body of the college in writing on 21st August, 2003 that reply to the charge-sheet was being prepared and would be submitted within time.
A copy of the said written communication was also forwarded to the Enquiry Officer concerned. From the records we find that on 25th August, 2003, said respondent/writ petitioner received a letter dated 10th August, 2003 written by the Enquiry Officer and sent by registered post.
The said registered letter was posted on 14th August, 2003 requesting the respondent/writ petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 18th August, 2003 at the college between 11 A.M. and 4 P.M. Therefore, by the time the said letter was received by the Principal on 25th August, 2003, the alleged enquiry was over. From the aforesaid facts it is established that the respondent/writ petitioner was not even granted reasonable opportunity to appear before the Enquiry Officer in order to defend himself in respect of the charges leveled against him and mentioned in the charge-sheet. It is also not understood why notice was published in the daily newspaper without mentioning the date of the enquiry fixed by the Enquiry Officer in advance in order to enable the respondent/writ petitioner to be present before the Enquiry Officer.
The respondent/writ petitioner being aware of the enquiry proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer, submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 26th August, 2003 i.e. before expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the charge-sheet.
The Enquiry Officer, however, held the enquiry and submitted the report on 22nd August, 2003 which was surprisingly accepted by the Governing Body of the college immediately on the next day i.e. on 23rd August, 2003 without even forwarding a copy of the said enquiry report to the employee concerned namely, the Principal of the college in order to enable the said Principal to make appropriate representation against the findings of the Inquiring Authority.
The President of the Governing Body of the college by the written communication dated 23rd August, 2003 informed the Principal regarding acceptance of the enquiry report by the Governing Body and also asked the said Principal to make a representation against the findings of the Inquiring Authority by 26th August, 2003, 4 P.M. The respondent/writ petitioner received the envelope containing the enquiry report along with the said letter dated 23rd August, 2003 when the time to make representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer was admittedly, over and as a matter of fact, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on the said Principal namely, the respondent/writ petitioner w.e.f. 28th August, 2003.
On 2nd September, 2003, the respondent/writ petitioner received another postal envelope containing the letter of termination dated 27th August, 2003 issued by the President of the Governing Body of the college.
The learned Single Judge scrutinizing the relevant records did not find any proof regarding supply of the enquiry report to the respondent/writ petitioner prior to the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service. It appears from the facts stated above that the entire proceeding was held in hot haste.
The respondent/writ petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of defending himself. Each of the intimation, emanating from either the Enquiry Officer or the Governing Body of the college, had reached the respondent/writ petitioner after expiry of the date, which was fixed for hearing or the enquiry.
The learned Single Judge has noted that the entire proceeding was concluded in one day. Nothing was produced by the College authorities to demonstrate how the enquiry was held, which witnesses were examined, what documents were looked into and relied upon. In fact, from the narration of events, it is clearly demonstrated that neither the Enquiry Officer nor the authorities concerned waited even for submission of reply to the charge-sheet by the respondent/writ petitioner even though 15 days time was given to submit his reply.
As provided in the provisions of the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Act, 1975 and the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Rules, 1977, a teacher was required to be given atleast 10 days time from the date of receipt of the charge-sheet for the purpose of submission of reply to the charges mentioned in the said charge-sheet.
The aforesaid time to submit reply to the charge-sheet could also be extended for a further period not exceeding 10 days. In the instant case, however, charge-sheet was received by the respondent/writ petitioner on 16th August, 2003 and the penalty was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and communicated to the Principal under Memo dated 27th August, 2003 i.e. within 11 days from the date of receipt of the charge-sheet. The learned Single Judge has specifically held that the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted with undue haste and the learned Senior counsel representing the appellant before the learned Single Judge also did not seriously dispute the fact that there had been departure in the mode and procedure prescribed in the 1975 Act and/or the Rules framed there under in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. The manner of conducting an enquiry against a confirmed teacher has been specifically provided in the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Rules, 1977.
The learned Single Judge considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar & Ors. reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 and specially considering sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 7 of the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Rules, 1977 held that furnishing of enquiry report and opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment are mandatory when punishment of dismissal is in contemplation.
The learned Single Judge further considering the materials on record specifically held that order of punishment was issued to the respondent/writ petitioner in clear violation of the aforesaid West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Rules, 1977 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice. Rule 7 of the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Rules, 1977 lays down the detailed procedure regarding the manner of holding disciplinary proceedings.
It has been established before the learned Single Judge that the college authorities namely, the appellants herein did not follow the Rules while proceeding against the respondent/writ petitioner. Going through the records we also find that none of the provisions of the sub-rules under the Rule 7 has been complied with. Even a cursory glance of the Rules will clearly demonstrate that if the said Rules were followed, a disciplinary proceeding could not be concluded within one day.
A time schedule has been prescribed for appearance of the delinquent teacher in Rule 7(4). The procedure for conducting evidence for proving the articles of charges have been laid down in details in Rule 7(5).
Provisions have been made for discovery and production of documents in Rule 7(6). The mode of preparation of the report by the Enquiry Officer is contained in Rule 7(7). Under Rule 7(8), the Disciplinary Authority is required to consider the report and thereafter to form opinion having regard to the findings on the charges. None of the above provisions has been complied with in the facts of the present case.
We are, therefore, satisfied that a reasonable opportunity was not granted to the respondent/writ petitioner to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings by granting reasonable time to submit reply to the charge-sheet and also to appear before the Enquiry Officer apart from the fact that the enquiry report was also not forwarded to the said respondent/writ petitioner in order to enable him to make representation on the findings of the Enquiry Officer before acceptance of the said enquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority.
The principles of natural justice and procedural justice as well as the relevant provisions of West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Rules, 1977 have been flagrantly violated at the instance of the appellants herein in the facts of the present case. It is well settled that an order of dismissal would be vitiated due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The impugned order of punishment imposed upon the respondent/writ petitioner dismissing him from service was vitiated on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and also for non-compliance of the relevant provisions of the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Rules, 1977.
For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order of punishment imposed upon the respondent/writ petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same has been rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge. The next question now to be decided is whether any liberty should be granted to the appellants herein to proceed against the respondent/writ petitioner de novo. It is not in dispute that the respondent/writ petitioner had already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.
It is well settled that after allowing an employee to retire, no disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against him. The retirement snapped the employer employee relationship. There is no provision under the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Act, 1975 and Rules framed there under for initiation and/or continuation of the disciplinary proceedings even after retirement. Even under Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal (Death-cum- Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971, disciplinary proceedings may be continued only for the purpose of recovery of loss.
In the present case, going through the charge-sheet we find that the disciplinary proceedings were not initiated against the respondent/writ petitioner for recovery of any loss. Therefore, learned Single Judge has rightly held that there could be no question of continuance of proceedings against the respondent/writ petitioner after retirement from service under the provisions of the West Bengal (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971.
Mr. L. C. Bihani, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants also fairly admitted before this court that the disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued against the respondent/writ petitioner in view of his retirement from service under any provisions of the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Act, 1975, West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Rules, 1977 and the West Bengal (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971.
In the aforesaid circumstances, learned Single Judge was justified in refusing to grant liberty to the appellants herein to proceed de novo against the respondent/writ petitioner after setting aside the order of punishment.
For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we find no infirmity and/or irregularity in the judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge.
Therefore, we affirm the judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss this appeal without awarding any costs.
Xerox signed copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar be supplied to the parties on the usual undertaking.