4 29.4.2025 Ct. No. 8 SB FMA 3697 of 2014 CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 9909 of 2018) Sri Pasupati Das Vs. Head Master and Ex-officio Joint Secretary of Managing Committee of Howrah Rabindra Vidyamandir (High) School & Ors. MS. Sohini Bhattacharyya … for the appellant Mr. Jayanta Samanta Mr. Supriya Majumder … for the State Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya Mr. Bibek Datta Ms. Keya Panja … for W.B.B.S.E. 1. The appeal is arisen out of a judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge on 08.10.2013 at the instance of the members of Managing Committee of Howrah Rabindra Vidyamandir (H.S.) represented by the Secretary. 2. The subject matter of challenge in the writ petition appears to be the order of the appellate authority in reversing the finding of the disciplinary authority whereby the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The allegation against the writ petitioner appears to be that he has entered into a second marriage while the first marriage was in existence. The charge of bigamy was proved and he was convicted. Although, as on date it appears that a decree for mutual divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was passed on 23.02.2023 and was noted by a co-ordinate Bench presided over by one of us (Soumen Sen, J) in its order dated 23.10.2023 in connection with matrimonial appeal preferred by the writ petitioner herein. The learned Single Judge has refused to accept the 2 finding of the appellate authority that the writ petitioner was not given adequate opportunity of cross-examining witnesses and there has been non observance of principles of natural justice in the teeth of the second marriage having been admitted by the writ petitioner and there has been an order of conviction and sentence by the criminal court. The learned single Judge, in placing reliance on R. Vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex P. Mughal (1973) 3 All ER 796 and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan reported in A.I.R. 1981 S.C.136 and State of Karnataka vs. Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees Association and others reported in A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1223 has correctly observed that rules of natural justice should not be allowed to be exploited as purely a technical weapon to undo a decision which does not in reality cause substantial injustice and in all cases of violation of the principles of natural justice, the Court exercising its high prerogative jurisdiction need not necessarily interfere and set at naught the action taken, unless there is a reasonable possibility of prejudice being caused & established. The law is well-settled and articulated by the learned single Judge in the impugned order. 3. In view thereof, we do not find any impugned order passed by the learned single judge, however, having regard to the fact that mutual divorce has been granted by the learned District Judge, Purba Medinipur on 23.02.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed before us a communication from the school authorities to the District Inspector of Schools, Howrah, whereby relevant document as 3 per prescribed format for provident fund was forwarded to the learned District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Howrah on 04.8.2023 with enclosure consisting of nine documents and on receipt by the said office of District Inspector of Schools S.E. Howrah on 07.8.2023. The said communication is taken on record. 5. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the District Inspector of School, Howrah to ensure the Provident Fund dues are released positively within a period of four weeks from date. Since the District Inspector of School is represented, there is no requirement to communicate this order to the District Inspector of School personally. In so far as the other dues are concerned that shall be released within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order to the appropriate authorities and the school managing committee. Since the school is not represented, this order shall be communicated to the managing committee and the headmaster of the school for information and compliance. 6. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 7. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon completion of all requisite formalities. (Soumen Sen, J.) (Smita Das De, J)