Keshub Academy and Anr. Vs Tapan Kumar Samanta and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Keshub Academy and Anr. Vs Tapan Kumar Samanta and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal MAT 529 of 2025 disposed of along with CAN 1 of 2025 and CAN 2 of 2025 without interfering with the learned Single Judge's order; the Board (W.B.B.S.E) to decide afresh whether the writ petitioner's suspension continues during the de novo proceeding; the Headmaster may join the school subject to interim restrictions (no access to records; no signing of matters involving serious administrative issues for two weeks pending the Board's decision).

Issue for consideration

Whether the disciplinary proceeding initiated under the Management Rules 1969, interrupted by the 2018 Rules and already at the second stage after the enquiry report finding the Headmaster guilty of misconduct, could be completed in part, or whether a de novo proceeding was required under the ratio of the coordinate benches on Rule 28(8). +2 more

Court's answer

The Division Bench found no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge; having regard to the ratio of the coordinate benches on the interpretation of Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules 1969, a de novo proceeding is required to be initiated notwithstanding that the proceeding had reached the second stage after the enquiry report.

Ratio / Principle

The Board shall decide the matter afresh as to whether the suspension of the writ petitioner shall continue during the de novo proceeding.

Key takeaways

The school should have been made a party and given an opportunity of hearing before the matter was decided, although it would not turn much on the appearance of the school by reason of the ratio in Nitai Mondal (supra).obiter¶25
The Headmaster may join the school but shall not have access to the records for the time being, until the issue is decided by the Board.ratio¶28
The Headmaster shall not sign any matter involving any serious administrative issue for a period of two weeks, within which time the Board shall communicate its decision to the school authority on the issue of suspension.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench disposed of the appeal by Keshub Academy against the order of the learned Single Judge concerning the suspended Headmaster, Tapan Kumar Samanta. The disciplinary proceeding against the Headmaster had remained pending for 11 years under the Rules for Management of Recognised Institutions (Aided and Unaided) 1969; on promulgation of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Appointment, Confirmation, Conduct and Disciplinary Proceedings of Teacher and NonTeaching Staff) Rules, 2018, such proceedings lapsed unless a de novo proceeding was initiated, per the Division Bench decision in Nitai Mondal (FMA 303 of 2022). Although the proceeding had reached the second stage after the enquiry officer found the writ petitioner guilty of misconduct, the Court, following the coordinate-bench interpretation of Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules 1969, declined to interfere with the Single Judge's order requiring a de novo proceeding, observing that the school ought ideally to have been heard but that this would not alter the outcome. The Board was directed to decide afresh whether the Headmaster's suspension should continue during the de novo proceeding; meanwhile the Headmaster could join the school but without access to records and without signing matters involving serious administrative issues for two weeks, within which period the Board was to communicate its decision.

06 11.04.2025

Ct-08

ar

MAT 529 of 2025 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025

Keshub Academy & Anr. Vs.

Shri Tapan Kumar Samanta (suspended Headmaster) & Ors.

Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya

Ms. Anita Shaw

Ms. Salma Sultana

… For the Appellant/Petitioner

Mr. Bikash Ranjan Neogi Mr. Joydeep Sen Ms. Ananya Neogi Mr. Guddu Singh Mr. Anushka Ghosh

… For the Respondent no. 1

Mrs. Koyeli Bhattacharyya Mr. Bibek Dutta

Ms. Keya Panja … For the W.B.B.S.E

Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra

Mr. Subhabrata Das … For the State

By consent of the parties the appeal and all the applications including the application for leave to appeal are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

The writ petitioner was the Headmaster of Keshub Academy. A disciplinary proceeding was pending against the Headmaster for the last 11 years. In the writ petition disciplinary proceeding was initiated in terms of Rules for Management of Recognised Institutions (Aided and Unaided) 1969

2

and West Bengal Board of Secondary Education

(Appointment, Confirmation, Conduct and Disciplinary Proceedings of Teacher and NonTeaching Staff) Rules, 2018 has been promulgated. The fate of all the disciplinary proceedings that was initiated under the Management Rules 1969 were not safe under the 2018 Regulation by reason where of the Division Bench in FMA 303 of 2022 (Nitai Mondal Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.) held that a de novo proceeding is required to be initiated in the event the school authorities are desirous of continuing with the disciplinary proceeding that had lapsed by reason of 2018 Regulation. 3. Learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the said decision Nitai Mondal ( supra) along with the subsequent decision relying upon the ratio decided in Ashish Kumar Tiwari Vs. The State of West Bedngal & Ors. and Sushil Kumar Rai Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. held that if the original Rule 28(8) of Management Rules of 1969 does not survive during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding then the same cannot be allowed to be completed in part under the amended Rule but must go as a whole. In the instant case it was at the second stage of

3

the disciplinary proceeding after the enquiry officer has filed a report finding the writ petitioner guilty of misconduct. However, having regard to the ratio of the coordinate benches with regard to the interpretation of Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules of 1969 the de novo proceeding is required to be initiated.

On such consideration, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. However, we feel that the school should have been made party and an opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the school before deciding the matter, although it would not turn much on the appearance of the school by the reason of the ratio decided in Nitai

Mondal(supra).

It is submitted on behalf of the school authorities that the instant matter is pending with the Board as to whether the appellant/writ petitioner shall be kept under suspension.

The Board shall decide the matter afresh as to whether the suspension of the writ petitoner shall continue during the de novo proceeding. 7. The Headmaster may join the school but shall not have any access to the records for the time being till the issue is decided by the Board

4

and shall not sign any matter involving any serious administrative issue for a period of two weeks within which time the Board shall communicate its decision to the school authority with regard to the issue of suspension of the petitioner.

On such consideration, the appeal being MAT 529 of 2025 stands disposed of along with CAN 1 of 2025 and CAN 2 of 2025.

Urgent photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.

(Soumen Sen, J.)

(Smita Das De, J.)

5