A written admission of misconduct obviates a further hearing before dismissal under minority-school rules.

The petitioner, a permanent clerk at the respondent school, challenged his dismissal by the Secretary’s order dated 11 July 2022, effective from 1 July 2022, for alleged misappropriation of school funds.

He contended that he had not handled cash and that the school had dismissed him without a disciplinary proceeding or an opportunity to defend himself.

The school maintained that it was a minority institution governed by the Special Rules of 1973 and relied on two show-cause letters and five letters in which the petitioner had admitted the allegations and undertaken to repay the money.

The petitioner alleged that those admissions resulted from pressure, but the Court noted that this claim had not been made on affidavit.

1. Whether the respondent school was a minority institution governed by the Special Rules of 1973, rather than subject to disciplinary proceedings before the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.

2. Whether the petitioner’s dismissal was invalid for failure to provide him an opportunity to defend himself under Rule 12(2) of the Special Rules of 1973.

The Court applied Article 30 of the Constitution and the Special Rules framed by Notification No. 404-Edn(S), dated 19 March 1973, under which the minority school’s management—including decisions concerning dismissal or termination of staff—falls within the Managing Committee’s domain.

Rule 12(2) of the Special Rules provides that a permanent employee may not be dismissed without an opportunity to defend himself or herself and also provides for an appeal.

The Court relied on Dayanand Anglo-Vedic Higher Secondary School v. State of West Bengal, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 2484, including its determination that the minority status ruling applied to Dayanand Vidyalaya (H.S.), the respondent school in this case.

The Court treated the school’s minority status as settled by the unchallenged judgment of 11 March 2024 and therefore held that the 1973 Special Rules governed the school; the Board had no authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings concerning the school’s management.

As to procedural fairness, the record showed that the school had issued two show-cause letters and that the petitioner had not replied to them.

The Court also relied on the petitioner’s five written admissions and undertakings to repay the money.

It rejected the claim of coercion because it had not been supported by an affidavit, and considered a further opportunity to defend unnecessary in light of the petitioner’s written admissions.

It consequently found no patent illegality, arbitrariness, or impropriety in the dismissal.

It dismissed WPA 20613 of 2022 without costs.