K.M.Yusuf, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 3rd July, 1986 passed by a learned Single Judge discharging the Rule. The case of the writ petitioner, inter alia, is that he joined as a Tahsildar on 13th January, 1971 after executing an Agreement and in terms of the said Agreement the appellant's service is governed by the Government Servants' Conduct Rules and the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The Sub-divisional Officer, Alipore Sadar by an order dated 24th December, 1977 terminated the petitioner/appellant's service with effect from 1st January, 1978 in terms of Clause 11 of the said Agreement. His grievance is that his services were terminated without affording him any opportunity to show cause and without giving him any opportunity of hearing or conducting any departmental enquiry into his conduct. The charge against him is : (i) manipulation of false signatures which he admitted in writing; (ii) he was involved in manipulating some forged mutation orders which is under investigation in Bhangar Police Station Case No. 21 of 1978; and (iii) he fabricated false signatures of another Tahsildar on some rent receipts.
(2.) The allegations made against the appellant are refuted by him and he in his affidavit-in-reply annexed a certificate from the District Enforcement Officer, Bhangar Zone, 24-Parganas that he was not wanted in connection with Bhangar Police Station Case No. 21 of 1978. But the appellant admitted that in the absence of the Tahsildar Islam Ali Mollah he had collected rents on his behalf by signing his name in the dakhilas and deposited the amounts so collected in the bank in the name of Islam Ali Mollah. The appellant further submitted that be also granted two dakhilas in the name of Islam Ali Mollah for collecting a sum of Rs. 261.05 p., but he did not deposit the amount since it was collected in part. He tendered apology for the same.
(3.) The State respondents maintained that the appellant's representation were rejected after proper consideration and after giving him an opportunity of being heard. The State respondents also states that a departmental enquiry followed and he was found guilty. The respondents have relied in their affidavit-in-opposition that they have right under Clause 2 and Clause 11 of the Agreement to terminate the service of a Tahsildar and they have done so in accordance with law.;