S.K. Mookherjee, J.@mdashThis Second Appeal, at the instance of the plaintiff, is against a judgment and decree of reversal, The Trial Court
decreed the Suit instituted by the plaintiff/appellant for declaration that the Order of suspension ending with the Order of dismissal passed by the
Managing Committee of the Kharbana High School against the plaintiff was illegal, without jurisdiction and not binding together with a declaration
that he was entitled to reinstatement and also that he was entitled to arrears of pay together with all other admissible allowances from the date of
his dismissal. The lower Appellate Court reversed the said decree and dismissed the Suit substantially on the ground that the Suit was not
maintainable in Civil Court as the plaintiff was entitled to seek relief before the Appeal Committee of the Board of Secondary Education
constituted under the West Bengal of Secondary Education Act.
2. The admitted facts are that the plaintiff was a teacher in Kharbana High School and he was put under suspension on the ground of having been
guilty of moral turpitude relating to a female escort of the school Smt. Anjali Mukherjee and was ultimately dismissed from service. From the
records another important fact also transpires, namely, that the said female escort Smt. Anjali Mukherjee had ultimately withdrawn her complaint.
3. While allowing the appeal and setting aside the decree granted by the Trial Court, the Lower Appellate Court, it appears, did not go into the
merits of the factual contentions but held that the Suit was not maintainable on the ground as stated hereinabove. From a construction of Section
22(4) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, Regulation 11 of the (Manner of Hearing and deciding Appeals by Appeal
Committee) Regulation, 1964 it appears that an aggrieved teacher might move the Appeal Committee against any Order passed by the Managing
Committee and the Order passed by the Appeal Committee will be final and no Suit or proceeding would lie in any Civil or Criminal Court. The
Appellate Court, fell into a substantial error of law in holding that the Suit was not entertainable overlooking that the Suit was not against any
decision of the Appeal Committee nor the jurisdiction of the Appeal Committee had been invoked by the plaintiff/present appellant. On behalf of
the respondent Miss. Parmer has strongly urged that notwithstanding the aforesaid mis-construction the present Second Appeal is liable to be
dismissed as it is well-established that no Suit for reinstatement is maintainable except when it falls within the well-known exceptions laid down
judicially in Executive Committee, U.P. Warehousing Corporation Vs. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, . All the said decisions are all distinguishable on facts.
In the present case, the substantial grievance is based on absence of any disciplinary proceeding and of prior approval of the Board along with
non-consideration of prayer for damages by the Lower Appellate Court. I am unable to accept the said submission of Miss. Parmer as, in my
view, the Lower Appellate Court did not at all advert to the said aspect of the matter and did not consider whether such a Suit would be
maintainable when allegedly a mandatory provision of the statute or statutory Rule governing dismissal of a teacher by Managing Committee,
namely, prior approval of the Board and drawing up of a formal proceeding had not been complied with. Exclusion of Civil Courts jurisdiction is
not to be readily presumed. On the basis of the principle laid down in the case of Omkarmal Khedia v. Sm. Nirmala Patel & Ors. reported in
1975(1) CLJ 237 the Court of appeal below should have considered the point of maintainability of the present Suit. The other reason for which I
feel inclined to send the appeal back for reconsideration is that even if the Suit for reinstatement or for a declaration that the dismissal was illegal
becomes not maintainable, the other alternative prayer for damages for wrongful dismissal deserves consideration by the Lower Appellate Court
before dismissing the Suit in entirety and relegating the plaintiff to the relief under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act before the
Appeal Committee.
4. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs. The judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court are set aside and the
appeal is sent back to the said Court for reconsideration afresh on merit and in accordance with law on the lines of my observations made herein-
above. Since the Suit is one of 1972 it is highly desirable that the hearing of the appeal be expedited as far as practicable and should not go
beyond six months from the date of communication of this judgment to the Court of Appeal below.
5. Let the records be sent down forthwith.
6. I keep it on record that I have nod entered into the merits of the respective contentions raised before me by the contesting parties and the Court
below would be free to decide the appeal afresh on all points including that of maintainability of the Suit.