Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Mahidur Alam vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 14 September, 2021
14-09-2021
ct no. 05
Sl. 15
Sayandeep
W.P.A. 13836 of 2021
Md. Mahidur Alam
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
(Via Video Conference)
Mr. Eknamul Bari
Ms. Tanuja Basak
Mr. S.S. Mondal
Sk. Imtiaj Uddin
...for the petitioner
Mr. Supriya Chattopadhyay
Mrs. Sayantanee Bhattacharjee
....for the State
Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya
.... for the W.B.B.S.E.
The petitioner is an assistant teacher in a
Government aided High School is before this
Court, inter alia, challenging the decision of the
President of the West Bengal Board of Secondary
Education (hereinafter referred to as "Board")
dated 4th December, 2019 whereby the President
has terminated the service of the writ petitioner
upon placing reliance on the order dated 14th
November, 2019 passed by the Additional
District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track
Court, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in Sessions Case
No. 264 of 2008. Mr. Bari, learned advocate
appears on behalf of the writ petitioner and
submits that against the said order of conviction
2
dated 14th November, 2019, a criminal appeal
has been preferred before the High Court being
CRA 681 of 2019 which is presently pending and
in connection with the said criminal appeal, one
application being CRAN 5017 of 2019 was
preferred by the writ petitioner (Mahidur Alam
vs. The State of West Bengal) and the said
criminal application was disposed of vide
judgment and order dated12th February, 2020
by the Hon'ble Division Bench. The said
judgment of the Division Bench dated 12th
February, 2020 is annexed to this writ petition
at page 29. It is contended on behalf of the writ
petitioner that the Hon'ble Division Bench while
disposing of the said criminal application,
suspended the order of sentence as well as fine
which was passed by the Trial Court and
granted bail to the writ petitioner pending final
disposal of the appeal. By placing reliance on
the relevant part of the said judgment dated 12th
February, 2020, it has been submitted by Mr.
Bari, learned advocate, that the President of the
Board when took decision on 4th December,
2019 on dispensation of service of the writ
petitioner, the said judgment was not delivered
by the Hon'ble High Court and the judgment was
delivered on disposing CRAN 5017 of 2019
subsequently, on 12th February, 2020 therefore
3
the president of the Board had no occasion to
consider the judgment of the Division Bench of
High Court dated 12th February, 2020. It is also
submitted that had there been due
consideration of the said judgment dated 12th
February, 2020, the president of the Board
would not have passed order of termination. Mr.
Bari prays for reconsideration of the matter
relating to the service of the writ petitioner upon
placing reliance on the said judgment dated 12th
February, 2020 by the president of the Board
upon setting aside the impugned decision of the
Board dated 4th December, 2019.
Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, learned
advocate and Mr. Supriya Chattopadhyay,
learned Senior Government advocate appear on
behalf of the Board and the State respondent
respectively and have made their respective
submissions. Both of them have opposed the
prayer made on behalf of the writ petitioner and
defended the order passed by the President of
the Board dated 4th December, 2019 on the
common ground that there has been a
conviction order on conclusion of the criminal
trial dated 14th November, 2019 by the Sessions
Court and in the appeal preferred by the writ
petitioner before the Division Bench against
such conviction order merely the order of
sentence and fine has been suspended but the
same has not been finally set aside and the
entire issue is pending before the High Court for
final consideration at the time of disposal of the
appeal. Therefore, it is contended that at this
stage, there is no scope of interference by this
Court with the impugned decision of the
President of the Board dated 4th December,
2019.
This Court has considered the rival
contentions of the learned advocates who have
entered appearance on behalf of the respective
parties and also taken note of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 12th February,
2020 as well as the decision of the President of
the Board dated 4th December, 2019.
On perusal of the impugned decision of
the President of Board dated 4th December,
2019, it appears that the President had no
occasion to consider the judgment of the Hon'ble
Division Bench dated 12th February, 2020
passed on CRAN 5017 of 2019 by which order of
sentence and fine was suspended by the Hon'ble
High Court subject to final disposal of the
pending criminal appeal. This Court is apprised
of the fact that prior to the conviction order of
the Trial Court dated 14th November, 2019, the
writ petitioner was on bail and he was working
in the school. At present, in view of the
judgment of the Division Bench dated 12th
December, 2020, the petitioner has been granted
bail therefore the situation which was prevailing
prior to the order of conviction dated 14th
November, 2019, as it appears, has been
restored. Such issue needs to be considered by
the President of the Board while taking decision
on the service of the writ petitioner; whether writ
petitioner will be permitted to resume his duty
subject to the final result of the appeal.
In addition thereto, there is a circular of
the Board dated 19th January, 2007 which has
been issued in terms of the Rule 28(8)(b) of the
Management of Recognized Non-Government
Institutions (Aided and Un-aided) Rules, 1969
which also permits a teacher who is entangled in
a criminal case to perform his duties if he is on
bail. The said circular letter dated 19th January,
2007 also needs to be considered in the light of
the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Division
Bench of the High Court dated 12th February,
2020.
In view of the above facts, the decision of
the President of the Board dated 4th December,
2019 is set aside and the issue is remanded
back to the President again for taking a final
decision on considering the judgment of the
Hon'ble High Court dated 12th February, 2020
passed on CRAN 5017 of 2019 (Mahidur Alam
vs. The State of West Bengal) and the circular
of the Board dated 19th January, 2007. Such
decision is to be taken by the President of the
Board within a period of eight weeks from the
date of communication of this order and the
same shall be communicated to the writ
petitioner as well as the concerned School
Authority within a period of two weeks
thereafter. Before taking decision the President
of the Board shall give an opportunity of hearing
to the writ petitioner and the School Authority
being respondent No. 4.
With the above directions and
observations, the writ petition stands disposed
of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
All parties are directed to act on a server
copy of this order duly downloaded from the
official website of this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this
order, if applied for, is to be given to the parties
upon compliance with the necessary formalities.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)
