B.N.Banerjee, J. - (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: "Particulars of charges: Whereas 1. You Sri Nepal Chandra Guchait, Jeep Driver, kandi Block were transferred from Kandi Block to Bharatpur I Block under the lawful orders of the Sub-divisional Officer, Kandi, under the former's memo. No. 4833 (2) dt. 30-5-61 and that order was duly communicated to you on 31-5-61. But to evade the said lawful orders of the Sub-divisional Officer, Kandi you submitted an application for leave from 1-6-61 to 15-6-61 on the self-same date and left for Doomka without waiting for orders on your leave application. 2. The order of the Block Development Officer releasing you on 1-6-61 in the forenoon as per this office No. 1609 dt. 1-6-61 was sent to you at your leave address but the registered cover containing the release order was refused by you for reasons best known to you. This is another act of insubordination and disregard to lawful authorities And Whereas 3. You left the vehicle in the Block garage without making over the old spare parts, and repairing tools to present driver or to the storekeeper of the Block. This tantamounts to neglect of duty and disregard of official rules and regulations. Further you were asked under this office No. 2389 dated 25-7-61 to return all old parts to the present driver. But it appears from the service peon's report dt. 26-7-61 that you refused to accept the letter. This is another instance of flouting the orders of superior authorities. And Whereas 4. The Block Development Officer, Bharatpur I in pursuance of Subdivisional Officer, Kandi's memo. No. 7946 dt, 18-8-61 issued order to you to join the Block as per his No. 3485 dt. 23-8-61 and you were again reminded to Join the said Block as per Block Development Officer, Bharatpur I's memo No. 3734 dt. 14-9-61. You, without paying any attention to the said orders of the Block Development Officer, Bharatpur I and Sub-divisional Officer, Kandi, preferred a representation direct to the District Magistrate, Murshidabad seeking instruction as to whether you should join Bharatpur I Block or not. This is a clear case of misbehaviour and calls for departmental action. And Whereas 5. You absented yourself without any leave application from 14-8-61 till date. And Whereas 6. You absented yourself for a period of nearly 7 months in contravention of Rule 164 (3) of W. B. S. R. part I (revised) read with Sub-rule (b) of Rule 174 of W. B. S. R. part I (revised). In view of the charges from 1 to 6 detailed above- It is hereby ordered that In pursuance of District Magistrates order No. 3129-Dev. dated 17-11-61 and G. O. No. 10203 GDP dt. 13-10-61 you are asked to show cause by 15-1-62 why (a) you should not be discharged from service with effect from 1-6-01". The petitioner did not show cause within the time allowed. The Block Development Officer waited up to February 12, 1962 and thereafter passed the following order: "In pursuance of the powers delegated to me under Govt. of West Bengal Department of C.D. and B. S. G. O. No. 10203 CDP dated 13-10-61 received with District Magistrate, Murshidabad's memo No. 3219 Dev. dt. 17-11-61 and this office memo No. 8 dt. 3-1-62 served on Sri Guchait on 4-1-62 it is hereby ordered that Sri Nepal Chandra Guchait Driver is discharged from his service with retrospective effect from 1-6-61." That order was challenged before me on the following three-fold grounds: (a) There had not been any valid delegation of power to the Block Development Officer to dismiss the petitioner and as such the order was bad. (b) The order of dismissal was violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as copies of certain documents as demanded by the petitioner were not made over to him. (c) The order of dismissal with retrospective effect was in any event bad.
(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.;