- (1.) THE short point involved in this appeal is whether the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of discharge from service was lawfully heard by the Secretary, Panchayat Department, Government of West Bengal, and whether the order made by the Secretary in disposing of the appeal was validly made.
(2.) THE appellant was employed as a driver by the District Board of 24-Parganas and continued in such employment under the Zilla Parishad, 24-Parganas constituted by the West Bengal Zilla Parishad Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). He was called upon to show cause by a notice dated January 8, 1964, in respect of certain allegations made against him. But the enquiry, however, was kept in abeyance by the Administrator. Thereafter, further complaints were received against the appellant and a second show cause notice dated December 2, 1964, was served upon him. Pursuant to this second show cause notice, an enquiry proceeding was started against the appellant. In course of the enquiry proceeding following the two show cause notices, further complaints were received and a third show cause notice dated February 19, 1965, was served upon the appellant.
(3.) THE Executive Officer of the first respondent conducted an enquiry into the charges, witnesses were examined and by a report dated March 31, 1965, the Executive Officer reported that one out of the six of the charges in the first charge-sheet, and all the charges in the two subsequent charge-sheets were proved. The Executive Officer recommended the dismissal of the appellant from the service of the first respondent. Thereafter the first respondent served a notice upon the appellant to show cause why he should not be discharged from service. The appellant showed cause in writing. By a unanimous resolution dated May 5, 1965, the first respondent discharged the appellant from service. Against this order of discharge, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, presidency Division, through the Chairman, 24-Parganas Zilla Parishad. The petition of appeal was forwarded by the Commissioner to the Secretary, Panchayat Department. It is not in dispute that the procedure prescribed by section 31 (2) of the Act for dismissal of an employee was duly followed. Under S. 31 (2) of the Act, an appeal lies to the State Government against an order of punishment awarded by the Zilla Parishad under subsections (3) , and (4) of section 30, within one month from the date of that order. Under S. 105 of the Act, the Slate Government may, by notification, delegate subject to such conditions as it may specify, all or any of its powers under the Act except certain powers specified in certain sections. It is not in dispute that the State Government had the power to delegate its functions under S. 31 (2) of the Act. In exercise of this power, by a notification dated June 15, 1964, the Governor delegated the powers under sub-section (2) of S. 31 of the Act against orders of punishment awarded by Zilla Parishad to the Divisional Commissioner. Prior to this notification, however, there was another notification dated February 5, 1959, by which the Governor, in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 166 (2) of the Constitution, prescribed the following Rule : "orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated by the signature of the Secretary or an officer of the Government of West Bengal specially empowered in this behalf by the Governor". ;