WP(C) 2910/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. B Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. P B hattacharyya, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, appearing on behal f of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Heard also Mr. RJ Das, learned counsel, appear ing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5, Mr. C Baruah, learned Senior Co unsel, for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7, and Mr. M Saikia, learned counsel for th e respondent No. 8. The petitioner was the headmaster of Jirsong High School, Rongarting, Um rangso, which though recognized, is not a provincialised school. Consequently, t he management of the school is entirely in the hands of the Managing Committee o f the school concerned. On 20-10-2009, the petitioner was served with a notice t o show cause in respect of a complaint, which had been received by the Managing Committee of the school from the students and parents of the school, alleging mi sappropriation of fund, molestation and sexual abuse of the girls of the said sc hool by the present petitioner as headmaster of the said school. By the letter, dated 20-10-2009, the petitioner was also directed by respondent No. 6, namely, President of the Managing Committee of the Jirsong High School, Umrangso, to sub mit, within 72 hours of the date of receipt of the said letter containing notice to show cause, reply to the said show cause notice. Though the petitioner received the said show cause notice, dated 20-10-2009, he gave no reply thereto. In such a situation, the Managing Committee resolved to d ismiss the petitioner from the post of Headmaster with immediate effect. In term s of the resolution, so adopted, a letter, conveying to the petitioner his termi nation from service, was issued by the respondent No. 6 on 30-10-2009. The petit ioner, then, preferred an appeal to the Inspector of Schools, Dima Hasao, Haflon g. Pursuing the appeal, the Inspector of Schools held an inquiry. The inquiry di d not exonerate the petitioner, but on the ground that the petitioner had alread y been punished in the customary tradition, his termination from service was hel d to be bad in law. What, now, needs to be noted is that the Inspector of Schools is not an appellat e authority. This apart, even the report of the Inspector of Schools did not exo nerate the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was not found innocent; rather, as indicated hereinbefore, he was found guilty the accusations made against him , but in view of the fact that he had already been punished in the customary tra dition, the resolution, terminating the service of the petitioner, was called a second punishment. With regard to the above, suffice it to point out that the headmaster of a schoo l, who did not dispute the fact that he had committed misappropriation of fund a nd caused molestation and sexual abuse to female students of the school, could n ot have been allowed to continue as the Headmaster of the school. This Court doe s not, therefore, find that the petitioner has been able to make out any case wa rranting that this Court invokes its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is not a dmitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.