D. Datta, J. - (1.) A Committee viz. Suri Bus Stand Committee (hereafter the said Committee) was formed some time in 1978. It comprised of the following members: 1) Additional District Magistrate, Birbhum - Chairman; 2) Sub -divisional Officer, Sadar, Suri and ex -officio Executive Officer, the Municipality; 3) Divisional Engineer, (Birbhum -O.& M. Divn.), W.B. State Electricity Board, 4) Executive Engineer, PWD, Birbhum Dn.; 5) Two non -official members of the Regional Transport Authority (to be nominated by them from amongst themselves); 6) Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Birbhum, Suri; 7) A representative of the Bus Owners' Association; 8) A representative of the Local Passengers' Association; 9) A representative of the Local Motor Workers' Association; 10) Deputy Collector (Treasurer), Birbhum; and 11) Regional Transport Officer, Birbhum (Convenor & Secretary).
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Cashier -cum -Caretaker by the Chairman of the said Committee and Additional District Magistrate, Birbhum, vide order dated 25.7.1980. The appointment was purely temporary, on consolidated pay of Rs. 450/ - and on other terms and conditions mentioned therein. By a memo dated 5.1.1983, the Secretary of the said Committee informed the petitioner that he had been confirmed in the post of Cashier -cum -Caretaker with effect from 1.7.1982 retrospectively.
(3.) While the petitioner was serving as Cashier -cum -Caretaker, he was placed under suspension by order dated 9.12.1996 issued by the Sub -divisional Officer, Sadar, Suri, Dist. Birbhum and Secretary of the said Committee in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. It is not disputed that a charge -sheet dated 8.1.1997 was issued against the petitioner and that the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer, Birbhum was appointed Enquiry Officer. He had submitted his report of enquiry dated 24.8.1999 holding that: ***** During course of enquiry it transpired that the letter of appointment of Sri Ashim Ghosh in the post of Caretaker -cum -Cashier of the Suri Bus Stand Committee could not be produced from either side. On the other hand Sri Ghosh stated in his deposition that he is not a Govt. servant and bore in the Govt. establishment and paid from Govt. exchequer, the petitioner was not a Government employee, the matter of initiating proceedings against Sri Ghosh falls on the wrong tract and in my opinion it will be an futile attempt to bring home the charges framed against Sri Ghosh and no further enquiry in this respect is worthwhile and it will serve no purpose. If the Bus Stand Committee does not require the service of Sri Ghosh any more, it may take other suitable measure in this regard as it may deem fit and proper. *****;