Inspector of Schools, Karbi Anglong District Circle v. Managing Committee of Jamuna Valley M.E. School

Heard Mr. S. Chokraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Bhomik, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. I have also hear d Mr. AD Choudhury, learned SC, Education Department as well as Mr. S. Banik, le arned SC, KAAC. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-5 order dated 18.05.2005 by which the In spector of Schools, Karbi Anglong District Circle approved the resolution Nos. 1 and 3 adopted by the Managing Committee of Jamuna Valley M.E. School. By the s aid resolution held on 16.02.2005, dispensation of service of the petitioner as the Headmaster of the school was approved. According to the petitioner, he was the founder teacher of the school and that h is service could not have been dispensed with in the manner reflected in the afo resaid Annexure-5 order dated 18.05.2005. In the writ petition the petitioner ha s annexed his order of appointment dated 12.09.1994 issued by the President of t he Managing Committee of the school. There is no indication in the writ petition at to whether the petitioner was appointed in the time scale of pay. However, i t is the stand of the petitioner that since the school is in receipt of grants i n aid, he received salary from it. There is no whisper in the writ petition as t o whether the Managing Committee of the school is amenable to the writ jurisdict ion. The respondents have filed their counter affidavits. In the affidavit filed by t he respondent No. 4 and 5, i.e. the Managing Committee of the school, it has bee n stated that the petitioner has falsely stated that he is the founder teacher o f the school. They have also questioned the appointment letter dated 12.09.94 re ferred to above. They have contended that the same a false and forged document. According to the said respondents, the petitioner was appointed vide order date d 10.01.1994. The affidavit further states that the Managing Committee of the M. E. School vide resolution dated 08.05.2005 had directed the petitioner to return the misappropriated amount of Rs. 7000/- and notice was served on 08.05.2004. T hereafter by another resolution adopted in the meeting dated 22.05.2004, the pet itioner was again directed to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs. 7000/- allegedl y misappropriated by him. The petitioner was warned to refrain from behaving unr uly manners. After the aforesaid developments and when there is no response from the petition er, the Managing Committee adopted another resolution in its meeting held on 31. 05.2004 towards placing the petitioner under suspension. It came to notice of th e Managing Committee of the school that the petitioner absented himself from att ending duties of the school from January, 2004. That apart, the petitioner has a lso misappropriated three months salary of the staff, i.e. from December, 2003 t o February, 2004 amounting to Rs. 7515/- alongwith the aforesaid amount of Rs. 7 000/-. The Managing Committee of the school vide its resolution adopted in 13.07.2004 d ecided to discharge the petitioner from service due to prolonged absence and mis appropriation of school fund. Accordingly, a resolution was adopted in this rega rd. Thereafter, the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 01.02.2005 recorde d the findings that total misappropriation of money on the part of the petitione r stated to be 18,465/-. The Managing Committee also noted the continued absence of the petitioner since January, 2004 and accordingly fresh show cause notice w as issued to him as to why he should not be discharged from service. When no res ponse was shown by the petitioner, the Managing Committee finally resolves to di scharge the petitioner from service. It was a sequel to the aforesaid developmen ts, the service of the petitioner was dispensed with. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the service of the petitioner co uld not have been dispensed with without providing him adequate opportunity of b eing heard. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 s ubmits that the petitioner having not responded to the notice served on him, the Managing Committee of the school was left with no other option then to terminat e the service of the petitioner. Mr. Banik, learned SC, KAAC submits that merely because the school had been prov ided with some financial grants, the Managing Committee of the school cannot be said to be an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In this connection Mr. AD Choudhury, learned SC, Education Department pla ced reliance on the decision reported in 2008 (1) GLT 615 (Mubarak Hussain vs. S tate of Assam and ors.) and also the Division Bench judgment and order dated 28. 07.2010 passed in WA No. 227/2010 (Md. Ali Haider vs. State of Assam and ors.). By the aforesaid decisions, this Court has held that the Managing Committee of a private school is neither an instrumentality of the State nor an authority wit hin the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Mr. S. Chokraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on As sam Aided Middle English School & Middle English Madrassa Employees Rules, 1960. It appears that the said Rules were not under Article 309 of the Constitution o f India. Be that as it may, the Rules provide for imposition of penalty under Cl ause 4. As per Clause -4 (b), the person concerned is required to be provided wi th reasonable opportunity of showing cause. In the instant case, the petitioner was provided with the said opportunity. The Rules do not contemplate holding of a regular enquiry. On the other hand, as per clause 4(b)(ii), when the authorit y empowered to dismiss/ remove an employee is satisfied that for special reason to be recorded in writing, it is not reasonably practical to give that person th e opportunity of showing cause, the requirement of the show cause notice can be dispensed with. As noticed above, the petitioner was provided with all reasonable opportunity of being heard on different occasions. But he failed to respond the same. If the p etitioner remained absent unauthorisedly in attending school and also misapprop riated school fund, the Managing Committee of the school cannot be attributed wi th fault in dispensing his services. The kind of protection as envisaged under A rticle 311 of the Constitution of India to which the petitioner has referred to, will not be application in the fact situation of this case and having regard to the status of the school. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and according ly it is dismissed.