- (1.) IN this Rule the petitioner prays for quashing an order dated 25th february 1963 terminating the petitioner's services under the West Bengal State electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board ). Briefly the petitioner's case is as follows :-
(2.) HE was employed as a part time typist formerly by Malda Electricity supply owned by 'behani and Company' licensee under the State Government and was eventually confirmed in that post with effect from 1st March 1948. The license of Behani and Company was revoked by the Government of West Bengal from 1st August 1961 under section 5 (1) of the Indian Electricity act, 1910, with direction to sell the undertaking of the Malda Electric supply to the Board the respondent no. 1. The Board took over the Malda electric Supply on and from 1st August 1961 with the existing staff employed there including the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner became the servant of the Board and along with other employees of the Malda Electric supply continued in service under the board on the same terms and conditions as they were under the Licensee company. While so working the petitioner was given option by the respondent no. 3 the Assistant Engineer by a memorandum dated 31st July 1962 to be absorbed as a whole time typist under certain terms and conditions to which the petitioner gave his assent in writing. Inspite of this the petitioner was served with an order under memorandum dated 25th February, 1963 issued by the respondent No. 2, the administrator-cum-Secretary of the Board termining his services with effect from the forenoon of 1st April 1963 without any reason for such termination. Thereafter, inspite of representation by the petitioner through his Advocate for cancellation of the notice terminating the petitioner's services, no response was given. That is how the petitioner felt aggrieved and obtained the present Rule.
(3.) UPON these facts several grounds were taken but the only point pressed before me by the learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner was that the order terminating the petitioner's services was signed and issued by the respondent No. 2, who was not the appointing authority of the petitioner and, therefore such order was bad. After the taking over of the undertaking of the Malda Electric Supply, it was contended, the Board became the appointing authority of the petitioner. So, the respondent No. 2 who is the administrator-cum-Secretary of the board was not competent to terminate the services of the petitioner by his office order dated 25th February, 1963 (Annexure F to the petition ). In the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondents it is stated under clause (a) of paragraph 7 that "the order complained of was issued on 25th February 1963 on which date the respondent no. 2 the Administrator-cum-Secretary of the Board was competent to pass such order by virtue of the power delegated to him by the Board. " A true copy of the extract of the Board's resolution dated January 22, 1958 delegating the power to such Administrator for appointment, posting, transfer, leave, deputation etc. is also annexed to the affidavit. It also appears that by further resolution of the Board the post of Administrator was redesignated as Administrator-cum-Secretary with effect from the forenoon of 2nd January 1963, a copy of which is also annexed. It appears that these facts in the affidavit in reply are not denied. What is stated by way of submission that the board had no authority to delegate the power to the respondent No. 2 and such delegation did not grant him the power to terminate the petitioner's service. So, the whole question is whether there was any valid delegation of power of appointment etc. of the staff in favour of respondent No. 2 and if so, whether such power of appointment could be applied to the petitioner for his dismissal.;