AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is a Headmaster of a school at Dhantala, District- Nadia. The petitioner was selected by the West Bengal School Service Commission
and recommended to the post where the petitioner is now serving. The immediate grievance of the petitioner is that a communication issued from the
office of the Additional District Inspector of Schools, Ranaghat by which the date of appointment of the petitioner is stated as 8th December, 2017
with “notional effect†from 10th August, 2007. The approval has already been given to the petitioner notionally with effect from 10th August,
2007 and with financial benefit from 8th December, 2017.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed to the concerned school by a letter from the Administrator dated 26th July, 2007 and the
petitioner joined the school from 10th August, 2007. This would be evident from two communications annexed to the writ petition. Counsel however
says that false allegations were made against the petitioner pertaining to his citizenship and F. I. R. was lodged by the school authority against the
petitioner at the behest of the Additional District Inspector for production of the citizenship certificate. Counsel relies on a Judgment of the Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Ranaghat, Nadia dated 14th July, 2015 by which, the petitioner was not only honourably discharged but the school
authorities were found to have fabricated false evidence within the scope of Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was also held that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and that the school authorities were directed to show cause
as to why they should not be punished for having committed offence of giving and fabricating false evidence.
Counsel submits that after such honourable acquittal of trumpeted charges framed against the petitioner there is no basis for the communication sent
by the Additional District Inspector dated 11th May, 2018 which gives notional financial benefit to the petitioner from 8th December, 2017 and the
petitioner is also said to have joined the school with notional effect from 10th August, 2007.
Despite service none of the respondents are present in court today.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this court is of the view that after the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Ranaghat, Nadia, the letter of the Additional District Inspector does not have any basis at all particularly with regard to the date of joining of
the petitioner in the concerned school and the date of financial benefit. Apart from filling in the columns, no reasons have been disclosed for arriving at
such conclusion. Having regard to the aforesaid as well as on the documents of record, the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 are directed to file individual
reports in the form of affidavits as to the correct date of joining of the petitioner and why the petitioner has been not disbursed his salary since 10th
August, 2007 that is the date from which the petitioner is working in the concerned school as Headmaster.
Such report should be filed within two weeks from the date of communication of this order.
List this matter after three weeks.