NEPAL CHANDRA GUCHAIT Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order made by the respondent Block Development Officer and communicated to the petitioner of February 1, 1955, the petitioner was appointed a Driver in Burwan National Extension Service Block. The appointment was temporary and terminable without notice. On January 6, 1957, the petitioner, it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition, was transferred to Kandi Block. Thereafter, the petitioner was ordered to be transferred to Bharatpur Block I, with effect from June 1, 1961, by an order, made by the Sub-divisional Officer of Kandi. The petitioner did not comply with the order. He applied for leave and also made a representation against the order of transfer, emphasising upon his personal difficulties. Before leave was granted, it is alleged, the petitioner went away. Because of the limited nature of the arguments made in this Rule, on behalf of the petitioner. I need not concern myself with the narration of the events following thereafter until the stage when the petitioner was charged with misconduct by a Memo, dated January 2, 1962, couched in the following language:

(2.) The first two grounds may be shortly disposed of. The Block Development Officer was the appointing authority of the petitioner and no question of delegation of authority to him over again arises, although, curiously enough, the Block Development Officer himself relied upon a delegation of authority to him. The first ground, therefore, is not of much substance.

(3.) The second ground is also equally unsubstantial. The petitioner did not show cause to the charges. He did not participate in the enquiry against him. He asked for certain documents after the order had been made against him. The authorities were not bound to give copies to the petitioner after the departmental proceeding was over. I do not, therefore, find any substance in the second ground as well.