Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. - (1.) The short point in this Rule is whether the order, dated April 18, 1973, of the Administrator of Anchalik Parishad, Mayureswar-1 conveyed by his memo No. 20/APD/73 (vide Annexure 'E' to the petition) terminating the petitioner's employment as a temporary Lower Division Clerk of the said Anchalik Parishad was by way of dismissal from service as a disciplinary measure and whether the same is liable to be quashed.
(2.) On January 31, 1966, the then President of the aforesaid Anchalik Parishad had appointed the petitioner as a Lower Division Clerk in the scale of Rs, 125-3 - 140 - 200/- with usual allowances as admissible on temporary basis. According to the Memo No. 1, dated January 31, 1966 issued by the Anchalik Parishad (vide Annexure 'A' to the petition) the petitioner was liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. The petitioner was asked to join on February 1, 1966. While the petitioner was serving as a Lower Division Clerk, the then President of the Anchalik Parishad by a Memo, dated August 17, 1967 asked him to show cause why his services shall not be terminated on two charges, namely (I) Conspiracy against the President and (ii) Removal of office records. The petitioner by a letter, dated August 31, 1967, had denied the said allegations. Thereafter, on September 29, 1967. the Finance and Establishment Committee of the Anchalik Parishad had purported to pass a resolution discharging the petitioner from service. On October 4, 1967, the then President of Anchalik Parishad purported to dismiss the petitioner with effect from September 25, 1967. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order preferred service Appeal Case No. 5 of 1968 under Section 467 of the West Bengal Zilla Parishad (Election, Constitution and Administration) Rules 1964, to the Commissioner, Birbhum Division. The Commissioner Burdwan Division by his order, dated September 16, 1968 allowed the petitioner's appeal and set aside his dismissal from service. On November 14, 1968, the Commissioner, Burdwan Division made a further order directing that the petitioner be given the benefit of full pay from the date of his suspension to the date of his resuming duties. The Anchalik Parishad obtained Civil Rule No. 580 (W) of 1969 against tho aforesaid order of the Commissioner. Burdwan Division. Subsequently, the administrator of the Anchalik Parishad was added as the petitioner No. 2 in the said Rule.
(3.) On March 31, 1967 this Court disposed of the said Rule. It was held that the Commissioner, Burdwan Division had jurisdiction to set aside the order of dismissal and his order did not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. It was further held that after passing the above appellate order, the Commissioner had become functus officio and his order, dated November 14, 1968 should be struck down on the ground that he had no further order or authority to make any order in the appeal. No decision however, was made on the question in whether or not the respondent No. 4 was entitled to receive benefit of full pay for the period from the date of his suspension to the date of his resuming duties. Thus the said rule so far as the order, dated September 16, 1968 passed by the Commissioner, Hawrah Division was discharged and made absolute so far as the order, dated November 14, 1968 was concerned.;