Sunita Devi v. The Director, Directorate Of Education And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ** WPA/163/2021 Sunita Devi

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Director, Directorate of Education and others ... Respondents Mr. S.C. Mishra, Advocate ... for the petitioner Mr. A.K.Mandal, Advocate ... for the Administration Mr. G.Binnu Kumar ... for the respondent No.3 September 13, 2021 [AKB] Item No.8 The petitioner was appointed as a teacher of the respondent school and was working under the esteemed institution till the termination order No. 1731 dated 28.02.2020. It is claimed that she has worked with all honesty and dedication towards her teaching profession and to the institution.

Order No. 1731 dated 28.02.2020 has been impugned in this writ petition as it reflects that the service of the petitioner was no longer required from 1 April, 2020. Such decision was taken considering misconduct, misbehavior, indiscipline, doubt full integrity and use of abuse, filthy and unparliamentary language against the students resorting to severe punishment, revenge, tarnishing the image of the school and society and also attempting to ruin the career of students. So, the governing body of the respondent St. Mary Charitable and Educational Society decided to terminate the service of the petitioner on the inquiry report of Assistant Manager.

The petitioner has made a representation on 30.07.2020 with request to reconsider the impugned order before the manager of the school society submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner is baseless and based on false allegation. It is contended that the petitioner has rendered her services for almost eleven years to the institution and without cogent reasons she has been terminated during the period when the entire country was fighting with pandemic COVID 19 and there are many SOPs and guidelines of the Government of India to retain the staff to their place of work and not to terminate or remove the staff.

The petitioner has sought for issuance of mandamus upon the respondent no.3 to cancel, rescind the purported order dated 28.02.2020 and further direction upon the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 30.07.2020 within a time bound manner.

On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, the respondent No. 2 and 3 are directed to take into consideration representation so submitted by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order and to revisit the preliminary inquiry report against the petitioner upon giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and further to pass a reasoned order.

Let it be noted that this writ application is being disposed without entering into the merit as there is no affidavit-in-opposition being used by the respondents. Therefore, the averments and contentions made in the writ application stood disputed and denied on behalf of the respondents.

Thus, the writ application being WPA/163/2021 is disposed of, however, without any order as to costs.

All the parties are directed to act on the basis of the website copy of the order.

(Shivakant Prasad, J.)