No Attendance, Full Pay? Now comes the Recovery

West Bengal’s Higher Education Department has ordered action against employees of Dum Dum Motijheel Rabindra Mahavidyalaya following allegations that some non-teaching staff remained absent from the college for prolonged periods while continuing to receive salaries. The department has reportedly directed the recovery of salaries paid during the alleged period of unauthorised absence, bringing the college’s attendance and service records under scrutiny.

One of the cases reportedly concerns library assistant Banibrata Chakraborty, who has allegedly not attended the college regularly for around six years but continued to draw his salary. Reports state that his salary was paid until May 2026, following which instructions were issued to stop further payments and recover the money allegedly paid during his absence. A typist has also reportedly been accused of remaining absent for around two years, while questions have been raised over leave records and approximately 300 days of leave encashment at the time of retirement. Another allegation concerns a peon who was reportedly absent for several months, with discrepancies allegedly found in his service records.

The allegations are now being examined through official records, including attendance registers, leave records and service books. The college administration has reportedly declined to comment while the matter is under investigation. This distinction is important: prolonged absence does not automatically establish unauthorised absence. The authorities will have to determine whether the employees had sanctioned leave or other valid grounds for being away and whether the corresponding records were properly maintained.

The case also raises questions about how salaries were processed during the alleged periods of absence. In a government-aided college, attendance and leave records form part of the administrative process through which salary bills are prepared and approved. If the allegations are established, the investigation will therefore have to determine not only whether employees were absent without authorisation, but also whether the institutional checks meant to prevent such payments were followed.

The political background surrounding one of the employees has also featured in reports, with Banibrata Chakraborty identified as being associated with the Trinamool Congress student organisation. However, political association cannot establish the allegations against him. The findings will depend on official documentation and the departmental inquiry, and the employees concerned must have an opportunity to respond before any final conclusion is reached.

The reported decision to recover previously paid salaries indicates that the department is treating the matter as more than a routine attendance dispute. However, the exact amount to be recovered has not been established through publicly available official documents, so claims about the total financial loss should be treated cautiously. The next stage will depend on verification of attendance registers, service records, leave approvals and salary documents.

Ultimately, the case leaves behind a concern for not only this college but the whole educational framework of this state that if an employee could allegedly remain absent for years while public money continued to be paid, who was responsible for noticing the absence? And if the system failed at multiple stages, should accountability stop with the person who allegedly did not attend, or also reach those responsible for ensuring that the records and salaries matched the work actually being done?