Tarun Bhattacharyya vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

This writ petition was filed by the petitioner in person. But in the changed circumstances this writ petition has been briefed to learned counsel Mr.

Arabindo Chatterjeee. Mr. Chatterjee has filed the Vakalatnama in the department on May 1, 2018 under filing No.A/4429.

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is challenging the order dated April 19, 2018 by which

the Managing Committee of the Durgapur MAMC Township Modern High School (H. S.) has sought recovery of excess monthly salary drawn by the

writ petitioner.

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that he had been appointed in the year 2013 and has been drawing salary as per his appointment letter

and the resolution adopted thereafter by the earlier Managing Committee. He submits that as per resolution dated March 21, 2018 anomalies were

found in the fixation of the pay-scale of the Headmaster. Subsequent to the said meeting, on March 22, 2018 a show cause notice was issued to him

wherein it had been found that he had been drawing salary as per the pay-scale of 11300-275-13500 with 10 additional increments and two additional

increments of B.Ed along with Rs.1000/- as extra allowances for Head Master post.

The show cause notice stated that his pay-scale should have been fixed at 8000- 275-13500, with two additional increments as per Government Rule.

He was directed to enclose all the relevant papers in support of the fixation of his monthly salary. By letter dated March 27, 2018 he replied to the

show cause notice explaining his position. However, by the impugned letter dated April 19, 2018, the Secretary of the Managing Committee informed

him that no rules and regulations have been obeyed or complied with by him while drawing the monthly salary as a Headmaster. The letter further

stated that he should refund the excess amount of salary that had been drawn flouting the rules to the Accounts Department of the school within 14

days from the date of receiving the letter, otherwise stringent action would be taken against him.

The crux of the arguments on behalf of the writ petitioner is based on violation of the principles of natural justice. The other arguments that have been

made are not relevant at the present moment as this court is of the opinion, after hearing both parties, that there has been violation of the principles of

natural justice and the impugned order was passed admittedly without giving any opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner.

Learned counsel on behalf of the respondents submitted that they are amenable to grant an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and also

amenable to allow the writ petitioner to file a detailed reply to their show cause notice. In view of the above, the order dated April 19, 2018 is quashed

and set aside with directions on the respondent authorities to allow the writ petitioner to file a detailed reply to the show cause notice dated March 22,

2018 within a period of five weeks from date. The respondent authorities shall thereafter grant an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and pass

a reasonable order citing this specific violation of the writ petitioner and relying on any rules and regulations that they wish to do within a period of four

weeks after submission of the detailed reply.

It is made clear that the writ petitioner shall have no right to seek adjournment on irrelevant grounds. The writ petition is disposed of without any order

as to costs. Since affidavits have not been exchanged between the parties, the allegations made in the writ petition are not deemed to have been

admitted by the respondents. It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of this case, which is kept open to be decided by the appropriate

forum, if approached, in accordance with law.