Pulshita School: A Witness Calls for a Corruption Inquiry

The account below comes from a witness to the events and the person who prepared the evidence set. The witness alleges that corruption and abuse of authority at Pulshita Bholanath Vidyaniketan harmed students, compromised school funds and left families without meaningful answers. The witness accuses Headmaster Chanchal Maiti of financial and midday-meal irregularities, dereliction of responsibility and abuse of position. The witness also alleges that the relevant School Inspector (SI), District Inspector (DI), Block Development Officer (BDO), school administration and managing committee failed in their duties and helped the misconduct continue. The allegations further concern committee president Surajit Gantait, unofficial hostel warden Debasish Gantait, and members of a local club whose clubhouse was allegedly built on school-provided land and whose members are alleged to have participated in corruption.

The witness stands by this account. The exhibits below show contemporaneous complaints, meeting records, a resignation letter, protest coverage and other supporting material. The responsible authorities are asked to test each allegation against original accounts, attendance registers, meal records, land records, minutes and inspection files, and publish a reasoned outcome. No official inquiry report or final response is included in the material currently assembled here.

How the crisis unfolded

The witness says the events that brought this crisis into public view were observed directly. In the first week of December 2023, Headmaster Chanchal Maiti returned to the school after an absence of nearly six months. His attendance had long been a serious concern to the school community. The department is asked to publish the attendance and leave record from his 2009 appointment onward so the claim can be checked against official data.

Meetings on 7 and 8 December brought the headmaster, staff and residents together. As problems were discussed, teachers and community members raised concerns about the headmaster’s conduct, school administration and finances. A wider meeting was proposed for 9 December with guardians and former managing committee members.

Headmaster Chanchal Maiti did not attend the 9 December meeting. Residents protested. During the protest, he submitted a resignation citing personal reasons, and the protest was withdrawn after that submission. On 12 December he sought to withdraw his resignation and said he feared for his life. The resignation letter dated 9 December and the subsequent request to withdraw it are included in the evidence archive below.

On 11 and 12 December, school inspection officials and the Joint BDO were approached or visited. The witness alleges that the SI and DI failed to ensure a prompt, impartial examination of the complaints and that the BDO did not provide effective oversight. The department is asked to publish each officer’s written note, the action taken, and the legal or administrative basis for any decision. The issue is whether these authorities carried out their duties, not whether they can settle the matter through an informal meeting.

The allegations: school money, meals and student welfare

The witness alleges that public funds meant for children’s meals were mismanaged and that weak or absent checks allowed the school’s meal programme to be run without meaningful accountability. The dated complaint sets out specific questions about food quality, nutrition, meal counts, inspections, expenses and supplier dues. It is not enough for officials to say the issue was discussed: they should reconcile the underlying figures and publish the audit result.

The witness also calls for an independent safeguarding inquiry into sexual harassment allegations concerning the headmaster, including allegations involving students and a teacher. Student identities and private details are not published. Authorities must protect anyone who may be at risk, investigate through the proper child-safe and workplace channels, and give a clear account of the outcome without exposing survivors.

These complaints were not raised for the first time in December 2023. The community points to earlier representations in 2014, 2019 and 2022. Retrieve those files, record what action was taken, and explain why the same concerns continued to surface.

December 13: families demand answers

On 13 December, guardians, residents and former managing committee members held a mass protest. The SI arrived, received written allegations and set a meeting within seven days. The protest was a public warning that families had lost confidence in the school’s internal processes. A supplied newspaper clipping shows the protest and its public context.

Community video shared by the witness: 9 December protest · 13 December protest.

December 21: the headmaster was confronted in an official meeting

The witness attended the 21 December meeting with the SI, Assistant Inspector, Joint BDO, police personnel and school-community representatives. The allegations were put directly to Headmaster Chanchal Maiti. According to the witness, he acknowledged their correctness and said he could rectify himself if given a chance. The meeting’s resolution and attendance pages are displayed below. The department is asked to compare this account with the signed minutes and statements of everyone present.

The SI directed the managing committee to appoint a Teacher-in-Charge and bring the midday meal allegations to the BDO. Yet the community still needs a written answer: Was a Teacher-in-Charge appointed? Was the meal matter formally referred? Was an audit or inspection opened? What orders followed? The official file should answer each question.

Surajit Gantait, president of the managing committee, had a duty to ensure transparent governance. The witness alleges that the committee under his presidency failed to protect students and school resources and did not provide effective scrutiny. The inquiry should establish what the president and each committee member knew, what they decided, and whether any conflict of interest shaped their actions.

School land and the local club

The witness further alleges that a local club built its clubhouse on land provided by the school and that club members were involved in corruption around the institution. The club’s name, land boundaries, permission and terms of use must be made public. The authorities should inspect the site, identify the land owner, locate any lease or resolution, and disclose whether the school received any payment or benefit. If land was provided without lawful authority, the responsible decision-makers must be held to account.

Who must answer, and what evidence should be checked

The witness names the people and offices whose conduct should be examined. These are the specific allegations and the records that can confirm or disprove them:

The investigation the school community is still owed

The evidence assembled here does not tell readers whether every complaint was registered, whether a full inquiry was completed, or whether corrective measures were taken. Because these events took place several years ago, the first step is a written status determination: identify every representation, its receiving office and file number, the action taken, and any final order. If no inquiry was completed, the authorities should explain why and appoint an independent team with a clear timetable.

1. Publish the procedural statusConfirm receipt numbers, the offices that handled the complaints, inquiry dates, findings, and any orders or referrals. If a case remains open, name the responsible office and give a date for the next update.
2. Audit meal records and fundsCompare attendance with meals served and reported; inspect menus, food quality, stock and delivery records; reconcile bills, bank transactions, expenses, supplier invoices and pending dues for the relevant years. Preserve original records and explain discrepancies.
3. Verify attendance and school functioningReview the headmaster’s and staff attendance, leave and duty records alongside timetables, classroom coverage and academic records. Publish findings in a way that protects students’ personal information.
4. Examine governance and hostel managementCheck guardian and managing committee meeting notices, minutes, attendance, hostel registers and accounts. Establish who held each role, who authorized spending and whether funds were used for their stated purpose.
5. Handle safeguarding complaints independentlyRefer any sexual harassment or child-safety complaint to the competent, impartial authority. Protect the identity and safety of students and complainants, prevent retaliation, and report only the procedural outcome that can lawfully be disclosed.
6. Give every named person a fair opportunity to respondSeek written responses from the headmaster, school committee, inspection officials and relevant staff. Record what evidence supports or contradicts each allegation and correct the public account if the findings differ from the complaints.
7. Make the outcome understandable to familiesProvide a dated, reasoned summary in Bengali and English, identify any remedial steps and responsible offices, and set a channel for guardians to report continuing problems safely.

A request to the West Bengal School Education Department

The witness asks the Minister-in-Charge of School Education, the Additional Chief Secretary, the Directorate of School Education and the appropriate district authorities to confirm the present status of the allegations concerning Pulshita Bholanath Vidyaniketan and ensure that every unresolved issue is examined independently. If inquiries have already concluded, families deserve a clear account of the findings and corrective action, subject to student privacy and due process. If they have not, the department should set out who will act and by when.

The witness calls on the state to investigate the named people and offices, follow the money and land records, protect students and publish findings. The witness stands by the account and is prepared to provide the original evidence to an impartial inquiry. The people named here should answer the specific allegations on the record.